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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Murrey Walker who wrote (58688)	7/15/2003 4:41:23 PM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 65232

murrey- that's an interesting post. it doesn't include any of the earlier covert US actions like the US supplying iraq with weapons and lethal gas for their conflict with iran. maybe that's irrelevant? IMO it's a good read for those who continue to post a one-sided bias against what we're doing in Iraq. ?? i don't see the relevance of that statement to the post you linked to. but i don't see anything that needs rebuttal in that post either. what i do see as needing rebuttal is your implication or inference that the US is not doing anything wrong in iraq. (if that's not your point then ignore the rest of this message.) iraq's done a lot of things contrary to the well being of the international community and no one denies that they ought to be called on it and pressured to cease, make retribution, and suffer punitive damages. in the past that has been pursued by the international community through the auspices of the UN. if you recall, gulf war 1 was an internationally sanctioned and supported event and the weapons inspection program put in place afterwards was a UN team. what we're doing in iraq right now is without the support and involvement of the international community. we've ignored and skirted international law, denied due process of law to the accused and acted on our own outside of the international community in a matter that clearly belongs in international hands. that's ungentlemanly of us. <g> it sends the message around the world that it's okay to ignore law and due process if you have the biggest guns. that's a bad message, IMO. it sets us up for a lot of paybacks in a similar lawless manner... it's bad karma dude. i try not to discuss these matters on this thread because i don't think most here like to read about this topic... but since you bring up the matter and you post it ***To All**** and because i have a differing opinion and POV on the circumstances of the US's involvement in iraq, i'd feel guilty if i didn't speak up about it - and i know you don't want me to feel guilty. <g> i'll shut up about it now. watch out for claudette remnants. you may get wet. -polvo

To: Murrey Walker who wrote (58688)	7/15/2003 8:08:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

(FWIW, I started this reply early this afternoon as I was starting my Blue skies posts, then responding to polvie. Sice then, some of my commentary has already been proven accurate. No surprise here.) Thanks Murrey. Sig did a nice time line. And I liked his commentary too. Too bad it will have zero effect on most 'thread bloaters'. They've learned a few tricks from their political leaders & their favorite media outlets. All they need to do is ignore facts like that, let a little time pass & continue with the same line of intentional deception that WMD's didn't exist, that there was no threat, the war was illegal, our presence there is wrong, it was all about oil, etc., etc. It didn't stop them as each new piece of data relating to WMD programs came out after the war either. I mean really, you do know those mobile labs were actually there to make (very, very expensive) hydrogen, don't you? I mean really, I don't know what I'd do if my local mobile hydrogen lab didn't make it's weekly rounds to my neighborhood. And that 100 acre chemical plant that was ringed with barbed wire? You remember, the one that was camouflaged to look like the surrounding desert from the sky? The 100 acre chemical plant that was booby trapped? The one that had been recently emptied of all evidence at the start of the war? The one that had two generals in charge, plus an army barraks on site? You know, the chemical plant that was never declared to the UN (when all dual use plants were required to be declared)? Now we know there's no way that 100 acre chemical plant in the middle of nowhere was an illegal WMD site. Nope. No friggin' way. It was there to make very, very expensive fertilizer for the surrounding desert & needed to be camouflaged & protected by hundreds of armed troops because we know how folks have been arming themselves to raid fertilizer factories these days. And that centrifuge along with numerous documents on how to enrich uranium? That was, well, um, 'er, uh, well, it was old & doesn't count. (cough, cough, look away & fidget a spell) And those thousands & thousands of new chemical suits, plus similar amounts of atropine injectors spread all over Iraq? That wasn't evidence of the existence of WMD's at all. No-sir-ee! Iraq genuinely feared that the US was going to use WMD's against innocent Iraqi's. All you need to do is suspend your disbelief about the fact that the US hasn't used WMD's (chemical/biological) in battle since what? WWI? And the fact that the US has signed a number of agreements to destroy WMD stockpiles, no longer weaponize WMD's & banned the offensive use of chemical & biological WMD's means nothing too - we have to remember Bush is a known liar after all & our bloodthirsty troops would gladly violate those laws & commit atrocities on a mass scale if the order came down. And it would have done wonders for US credibility too. Yup, Iraq was genuinely worried the US was going to use WMD's. Uh huh. I'd go on, but I just convinced myself that Saddam really never had any WMD programs & he was just kidding with the UN & the US all those years.