Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandeep who wrote (10483)	4/7/2003 6:16:44 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Baghdad has a long history of obstructing UNSCOM inspections and has taken an increasingly hard line since March 1996 when the United Nations began inspecting security facilities suspected of concealing WMD-related documents and material. UNSCOM is targeting these facilities because Iraq admitted after Husayn Kamil -- Saddam's son-in-law and former head of Iraqi military industries -- defected in August 1995 that security organizations were involved in concealing material from the United Nations: -- Resolution 687 demanded that Iraq provide declarations on all aspects of its WMD programs 15 days after the Security Council enacted the resolution in 1991. Nearly seven years later, gaps and inconsistencies remain in each of Iraq's WMD declarations covering chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs. -- Baghdad has modified each declaration several times to accommodate data uncovered by UNSCOM of the IAEA and provides new information only when confronted with direct evidence. For example, Baghdad revised its nuclear declaration to the IAEA four times within 14 months of its initial submission in April 1991 and has formally submitted six different biological warfare declarations to date, each of which UNSCOM has rejected. Baghdad has sought to constrain UNSCOM from inspecting numerous facilities since March 1996, mostly by declaring the sites "sensitive" and the inspections a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Iraq has applied the term "sensitive" to a variety of facilities -- on one occasion security officials declared a road sensitive. Most consistently, Iraq has sought to limit U.N. access to Special Republican Guard garrisons that are responsible for executing the highest priorities of Saddam's inner circle: -- Iraq is trying to keep the whole WMD story out of reach. UNSCOM and the IAEA have detected Iraqi officials removing documents and material from buildings, and even burning documents to prevent them from being evaluated. Inspectors have routinely found high-interest facilities cleaned out after their entry was delayed for several hours. -- Baghdad is interested in debilitating UNSCOM's ability to monitor elements it has declared. Iraq disabled monitoring cameras and hid production equipment after expelling US inspectors from the country in November 1997. -- Iraqi officials have interfered with inspection operations. Iraqi escort have endangered U.N. helicopter flights supporting inspections by harassing the pilot and grabbing the flight controls. Security guards have harassed inspectors on the ground. fas.org

To: sandeep who wrote (10483)	4/7/2003 6:17:26 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 14610

I have a young son. I pray that he never has to go to war. I have always considered myself to be more of an isolationist and object to many of the past military actions that the U.S. To assume that I am a war enthusiast is not accurate. I also think that it is absurd that this operation is called "Iraqi Freedom", that is not what it is about and it is insulting to try and pass it off as such. However, it doesn't negate the legitimacy of neutralizing a valid threat. 9/11 was the blueprint for attacking the U.S., they don't need WMDs to damage us. And the fact is, they are going to hate us no matter what we do. It is necessary to show that the price of threatening the U.S. is higher than they want to pay. I don't trust the gov't. Not democrat or republican. However, I believe that Bush is doing his job. The one real legitimate job that should be required of gov't's. And that is protecting its citizens.