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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24869)	6/17/2003 11:28:31 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 25898

He was spotted in Kennibunkport. Why? Are you vacationing there?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24869)	6/17/2003 2:45:15 PM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

WMDgate - and Bush lies - the case for Impeachment: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz to Vanity Fair, May 9, 2003 ROBIN COOK, "IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT REPRESENT A ‘CLEAR AND SERIOUS THREAT’" politics.guardian.co.uk Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Tuesday June 17, 2003 Former foreign secretary Robin Cook today dealt a series of devastating blows to the government's case for a war against Iraq, saying that it was "now clear that Saddam Hussein did not represent a 'clear and serious threat'". MI6 told Ministers Saddam posed 'no immediate threat' By Gavin Cordon and Helen William, PA News 17 June 2003 Former Cabinet ministers Robin Cook and Clare Short said today they were both told by MI6 in the run–up to the war with Iraq that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction did not pose any immediate threat. news.independent.co.uk US intelligence on Iraqi weapons rubbish says MP Democrats and the Greens are this afternoon expected to move for a parliamentary inquiry to scrutinise intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons. "Well when you relying totally on America I think it's a bit of an oxymoron - American intelligence - you know they produce whatever they need to justify going to war and if we're going to tag along as a third rate partner I just think we should have our own inquiry and see what results ensue from that," he said. www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s881491.htm IRAQ: "Guerilla Warfare" is taking a heavy toll on US occupation forces Los Angeles, Alta California - Friday June 13, 2003 - (ACN) The US chief occupation administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has issued a proclamation outlawing any “gatherings, pronouncements or publications that call for opposition to the US occupation." Bremer issued the proclamation after US troops suffered a series of casualties including the downing of an Apache helicopter and a jet plane by Iraqi resistance fighters earlier this week. "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us." -G.W. Bush The implementation of "martial law" and brutality against the Iraqi civilian population has aggravated the situation significantly. Approximately 3,000 US troops from the 3rd Infantry Division had to be deployed in the city of Fallujah to suppress resistance among the quarter of a million residents after occupation forces massacred Iraqi civilians in the city on April 28 and April 30. Resistance fighters are conducting regular attacks against US troops in the city during the night. It appears that the guerilla fighters have the full support of the residents of the city. The residents are assisting the nighttime guerrilla operations. According to the US military, the residents are utilizing different colored flares and light signals to warn Iraqi fighters about the strength of approaching US units so they can attack the most vulnerable. This is a classic guerilla warfare tactic. END THIS DISGRACE WWW.VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24869)	6/17/2003 4:33:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

I made no claims on the Taliban, I disputed your claim that the Nazi's and Stalin were examples of stable regimes. Why the hell are you disputing me?? Talk to Raymond, who seems to prefer totalitarian "stabiity". Btw, both Hitler's and Stalin's regimes were quite stable (neither of them faced any potential political rivals). But if you were on the receiving end of their terror, OF COURSE one would not perceive any personal stability. But that wasn't the point. The point was that Raymond believes that totalitarian regimes provide overall social stability.. My point is "at what price"?? Hawk