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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69731)	4/11/2003 10:19:25 PM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 70976

Re: I have repeatedly condemned our support of Saddam, and my hero is Tony Blair and not Bush I saw an episode of 20/20 which interviewed Tony Blair that I found interesting. I don't know the timing but I am pretty sure it is after the war was started and before Saddam collapsed. He said that if Saddam complies with UN 1441, there won't be such war and he can continue to rule the country. So your hero was effectively saying that the dictator can continue torture his people, so long he proved to Blair and Bush that there is no WMD or in other words, the only reason that this war MUST start is because of WMD, liberation is a convenient secondary goal. But everyone now talks about liberation to justify the war and finding of WMD becomes the secondary goal(if it still is). What is going on here ? I would say this is dishonest and you said he is your hero ?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69731)	4/11/2003 10:34:28 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 70976

> It's funny to me to read that you and Zonder blame the US for Saddam 15 years ago I don't know about Zonder, but my finger pointing goes way before that. CIA was behind bringing Baath party to power. > yet think that Halabja should be forgotten because it was 12 yrs ago Not at all. There is however a notion of a transaction. And it is universal in the world. Once a full round has been played, you can't go back to it. Do you bring up the old issues everytime you have a fight with your wife? If you want to make Halabja an issue, then you have to explain what makes it special compared to other events in the world. Remember, no selective prosecution. > I have been following the Russian press' response to the war, and they have been enormously distorted. Absolutely! I don't think Russians are any better than anyone else. (actually I think they are worse than most) But do you think the image is fake? I was watching the statue event live. And I remember thinking how few people were there, unless you were looking at a special angle only. > Do you think the world and Iraqis are safer without Saddam? I would say the Iraqis will most likely be better off. But the world, well I don't know yet. It is still too soon to tell. ST

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69731)	4/12/2003 9:28:33 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

I have been absent from this thread for a while, but, recently, I read some articles by Louis Rene Beres, a Princeton PhD in Political Science who is a professor at Purdue. I have a changed perspective on the war in Iraq. I don't believe the war is about Saddam, democracy for Iraqis, or oil. It is about 9/11. I read Condi Rice's policy statement, before, but Beres' perspective vis a vis Israel has made it clearer. It is very important to consider the statement that America will never again be threatened as it was in the cold war. The crazies around Bush might not be so crazy. Afghanistan and Iraq are what happens to anyone that is perceived as a threat. Develop WMD or support terrorist groups and the US will wipe out your regime. This is arrogant and it changes the rules established after WW2, but it has an element of reality that recent policy lacked. Consider the Israel-Palestine issue. The basic land for peace formula expected Israel to trade land for promises they didn't believe from enemies who are actively working to destroy it. Bush's crazies understand that Sharon will not act until Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are destroyed and WMD programs in Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. are eliminated. When there is no threat to the US and Israel, then Palestinans become an economic asset to both Israel and a Palestinian state. Usually, simplistic good vs bad doesn't work in this complicated world. These are not usual times. The US is more powerful than any country has ever been, but it is more vulnerable than it has ever been. The plan is simple and self-serving. You are with us or we take you out. The rest of the world has come upon a rude awakening. Big Brother is watching them from satellites and he can take out entire infrastructures with pin point accuracy. My first conclusion is that this kind of foreign policy must not be allowed to be implemented in concert with a domestic environment that stifles dissent and hides and obscures information and policy. When Bush said that the Palestinans need to have transparent, democratic institutions and must renounce the use of violence, he was criticized by people who asked why the Palestinians must be better than other Arab states. I see his statement as code. All the Arab states must meet the criteria before Middle East peace and a Palestinian state may be considered. The US has set the most powerful, most violent, and most dangerous Arab country on the desired path. Other states know that they need to reform or they will get unwanted help. The 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. It will not be easy to remove future motivation for attack, but the 9/11 tragedy made it obvious that the Middle East was broken. It is almost as if the Bush administration has decided to toss the Middle East into the air and see if can land a better place. From the US point of view, its corruption, violence, and despotism coupled with 9/11 and threats of WMD make it unlikely to get worse.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69731)	4/14/2003 4:51:08 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

It's funny to me to read that you and Zonder blame the US for Saddam 15 years ago, yet think that Halabja should be forgotten because it was 12 yrs ago And it is hilarious that you should choose to misrepresent my points in this regard. This is exactly what I have said, in a response to you, clarifying the exact same point: My point is that while Saddam has been known to brutally treat its own population, killing them in massive numbers in certain occasions, this is obviously not THE REASON for the proposed invasion of Iraq, because: (1) They were just as well known 10 years ago when the earlier Bush left him in place (2) Other US allies committing equally "atrocious" acts (Turkey, Pakistan...) (3) There are other nations perishing in worse conditions of civil war, hunger, and disease, and I don't see Bush shedding a tear to liberate them from their misery (4) US knew of the "atrocious" acts and still continued to supply Iraq with technological know-how to manufacture more WMDs: cooperativeresearch.org. Message 18507351 Now, please answer this simple but vital question - Does it look like I am saying that "Halabja should be forgotten because it was 12 years ago"? Or perhaps am I trying to say that it is not the real reason for this war?