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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (109233)	8/1/2003 11:55:20 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Maybe everything's coming up Roses?

To: Sully- who wrote (109233)	8/1/2003 4:05:07 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi wstera_02; Re: "BTW, what do you think they are finding in those new sites that "almost every one of them is one that we did not know about until we were led to it by Iraqis or the documentation we have seized." ??" It means that the US already went to every site that they knew about before the war, came up empty, and so now are visiting sites that they only learned about since the war began. In other words, they haven't found a damned thing, but are still collecting paychecks. Hey, a lot of people want to believe that WMDs are about to be found in massive piles, (i.e. the thousands of tons that the administration was talking about), ready to use in 45 minutes. They're going to be disappointed. It's only very rarely that you will find a person who's been hired to do a job (like look for WMDs) who will publicly state that he doesn't expect his job to be successful. Such people tend to be weeded out of the gene pool, or at least fired, LOL. -- Carl

To: Sully- who wrote (109233)	8/1/2003 9:03:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<what do you think they are finding in those new sites > I have no idea, since no evidence has been presented. Just promises, to add to the pile of past promises. This is where the disconnect happens. You present that article, and then expect the Peace crowd to take this guy's words at face value. You want us to assume honesty and straight talk, from people with a track record (as we see it) of dishonesty and broken promises. This guy is a salesman. Salesman don't ever tell the press they don't expect to meet their sales targets. That's a poor career move. Here is what we will believe: 1. not statements. I've read about the "torture-lite" that happens to people in U.S. custody, and posted it in great detail. They tie people up, naked, hooded, in a standing position, for days. Interrogate them without rest, endlessly, in shifts, for days at a time. Sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, it's a refined art. Do that long enough, and eventually you can get anyone to say anything. And sometimes the torture isn't so "lite", as with those prisoners who were beaten to death at Bagram. 2. not documents. Since the Administration has a track record of presenting "crude forgeries" as truth, I will assume any documents they come up with, could be (more professionally-done) forgeries. 3. not evidence of "programs of WMD". If it were just programs, and the Iraqis didn't have any actual WMD, then there was time to let UN inspections work, and there was no threat requiring war now. 4. not evidence Iraq had WMD in 1995 or 1988, or any other year except 2002 and 2003. No one disputes they had chemical weapons many years ago. That was not the claim, before the war. The claim was WMD now, today. 5. Not any evidence that isn't inspected and verified by neutral parties, like the UN, or maybe the Canadians or Mexicans or Japanese. The US and UK governments have every incentive to fake evidence. I wouldn't put it past them, to plant some anthrax, chemical weapons, maybe even a nuke or two, out in the desert, and then "discover" it. 6. So, this is what I will accept: WMD (the real thing, the actual functioning hardware), inspected and verified by the UN or other neutral honest parties, in existence in 2002 or 2003. Anything else will be met with disbelief.