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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Huang who wrote (1235)	7/20/2003 4:45:53 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

The recent news reports already showed that the real problem lies in the administration knowingly Made Up WMDs evidences so to justify the war rather than they failed to find the WMDs. I don't believe news reports show that they made up evidence. The instance in the current news is that President Bush included a statement in his State of the Union Address that was not corroborated according to standards that are usually used. That does not mean he was lying and I don't believe you have any proof that he was lying. As I said, I don't think it was handled professionally and the administration is suffering from this mistake. But there is no proof that it was a lie, just that the usual standards for inclusion were not followed. Besides, the logic is laughable: Tyrant Sadam had them but he did not use them or destroyed them when he was facing fatal defeat. I don't see anyone laughing other than you. There are many logical reasons for not finding WMD and many reasons why they were not used by Saddam if he had them. Here are only some of them: 1. They will be found in the future. Given the hostile environment, it is easy to hide an amount of toxin or other WMD in a small area. It might take years to find it unless someone involved confesses. 2. Any weapons that Saddam might have had would not alter the end result. Saddam probably realized that his strong hand was to go under ground not giving the WMD argument any support. In other words, Saddam seems to be able to play press relations better than the US I will admit. The fact that someone like you still thinks he's "not so bad," shows that his PR is excellent. He's still a killer and, if you do some more research, you'd realize that. Would you want to live under his regime? Would you prefer to live under Bush or Saddam? 3. The US has already found considerable evidence that Saddam continued to have WMD. For example, there were the many, many suits, the various implements that could have mixed uses as well as confessions from some of the Iraqi prisoners although this is admittedly far from reliable. Again, I'm only answering your points. I don't believe it's necessary to find WMD to justify the elimination of the Saddam regime and I believe the Bush administration was wrong in its emphasis on WMD. To liken someone as Hitler, a few basic criteria need to be met: _The tyrant’s nation is stronger, especially in military power, than the rival nation; A tyrant who kills, maims and rapes his own people as well as his neighbors should be eliminated. This is not like golf where you get a handicap if you are not as strong as your opponent. Saddam was strong enough to bully the weak. The US was like the "Good Samaritan" in my opinion. Irrespective of motives, the fact is that they did his people, the region and the world a favor in removing his tyrannical regime. The tyrant starts the war and commits massive killings in the other country and aims at occupation, usually acts with false reasons and propaganda; I don't see the logic and I don't remember reading any rules of warfare which state that you have to wait for a danger to touch you to remove that danger. In fact, Saddam has committed massive killings (do you doubt that???) in HIS OWN and neighboring countries. He occupied Kuwait and parts of Iran. He certain is an expert at "false reasons and propaganda" The majority of the world and UN are against the invasion and occupation. I agree but these are the same people who would and have run to the US for protection when the threat to them is more direct. Political rivalries on an international basis, as well as, national politics is largely at work here. I will agree, as I have stated, that the Bush administration handled the PR poorly. However, if they had waited, as the world did in WW II, to allow the tyrants in Germany, Italy and Japan to conquer until the threat came more closely, more millions would have been killed and the world would have been more prone to terror. I believe that the latest war was just a continuation battle of the Gulf War of 1991 and that it was justified based on UN resolutions of that time. Again, I believe the current Bush administration was foolishly led into a trap to "find Waldo" in an area controlled by "Waldo." Saddam maybe one of the many living bad dictators in the world, but he doesn’t seem to meet the criteria above this time. I believe I've stated how he meets each one of your criteria for being a tyrant similar to Hitler. There can be nobody like Hitler but that doesn't mean that the world should not take steps to remove a mini-Hitler. If the world does not act, the US will act. I just hope they do a better job of "press relations." I do not label anyone either. And don’t want to come up with a conclusion if it's good or bad yet. But Zionism is a term and a cause established by a group of Jewish people and they often proudly declared themselves as Zionists (but some of them may rather hind it for some reason). I don't quite understand that paragraph. I think you are saying that some people are very proud of being Zionists. Is there something wrong with that? I don't think so. It's a belief that varies among Zionist to Zionist. I think you are also saying that some people "hide" as I don't know what "hind" means. I think that's true in any environment. There were Jews throughout history who have pretended not to be Jews because of threats to their lives. There are also Christians, Muslims and even Hindus who are afraid to openly state their beliefs for reasons that sometimes defy explanation. That's all part of being free and I don't think it's wrong if someone wants to either be proud of being a Zionist or wants to hide his feelings. It's OK in a free land to chose. Nowadays Israel is under the elected Zionist Likud Party leadership, if I’m not mistaken about that You are mixing metaphors and labels again. In Israel, as in most of the world, you will find as many theories and possible solutions to problems as there are speakers. That is the nature of human beings. Jews like to give opinions and often times there will be 3 opinions for 2 Jews. (Note: I could substitute many other groups in the previous sentence, such as Italians, Muslims, Christians, Finnish, etc.) Opinion polls and the history of Israel have shown that the peace parties are the choice of most. However, in an environment such as the present, were cowardly attacks are aimed at civilians by groups that abuse others' children by luring them to suicide bombing, it is easy to understand why people would vote for a "strong platform" that campaigns on rhetoric to "stop the threat." Why is that so hard to understand? If you elminate the murderous Hamas and other splinter groups, you will find that the vast majority of Israelis will vote for the party that wants peace with its Arab neighbors including the Palestinians.