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

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3214)	1/9/2004 3:38:43 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Based upon what evidence? Are you a psychic? Hawk, many of us and I am sure including you form our opinions based on our life experiences. I have stated on several threads that I spent a good deal of time overseas growing up with the people in those countries. In those parts of the world, there is a lot of wheeling and dealing, many of them very unethical and would not in any way come close to the level of ethics that our politicians indulge in. They (which includes the Iraqis) are paper tigers. We saw that in 1991 and then now when the US military went in. Besides being all talk, they also lie. So the WMD was all a hoax. WMDs can be manufactured very quickly and they can be destroyed very quickly. So why would they maintain a stockpile. It is convenient for them to lie. So they lied and now the US is left holding the bag in front of the world community. In Saddam's books that is his victory, however convoluted that may sound to you and me. Now on the issue of the Al Qaeda link. When Saddam attacked Kuwait (a Muslim country) his standing in the Muslim countries went down like a free fall. I was reading several newspaper editorials from the Middle East countries then and they criticized Saddam and branded him a non-Muslim. There were Muslim zealots in Egypt, SA etc. crying out for his blood. That is why you had some Muslim countries join the 1991 coalition and come to the defence of the Muslim country of Kuwait. Not because they were friends of the US. But because they wanted to push Saddam out from the Muslim country of Kuwait. And Al Qaeda, which has always used Islam as a rallying cry would never support Saddam since in their books he is anti Muslim. You just have to know the thought process of some of these Islamic followers, not all Islamic believers think the way Osama (Al Qaeda followers)think. To Osama and his men, Saddam is evil. Now the tie between Taliban and Osama is something I believe to be true. They are tied to the hip because of their Islamic thoerocracy. But Saddam, he was a bully. If you disagreed with him, if you did not take his two sons to be his successor, you are done. As far as Saddam is concerned you could have gone against the Islamic belief and indulge in wine, women, not growing a beard etc. etc.. He would care less as long as you bow down to him, his sons and the Sunnis from Tikrit. He did not even care when his grandchildren's father went against him. He had him killed on his return to Iraq after he defected. That is pure dynastic rivalry, tribal rivalry with the Kurds etc. etc. not terrorism as Bush and his men categoize. Bush's read is way off base.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3214)	1/9/2004 7:37:30 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Hawk, there is Breaking News on CNN that Pentagon has declared Saddam a POW and hence the Geneva conventions will apply. For once, I can commend Bush for this decision to deal civilized treatment even to those who have been barbaric. That is, I think the American way. We give out treatment in conformance with justice (death penalty if that is what the Iraqi judicial system decides). IMO, we as Americans do not deal barbaric treatment no matter how heinous the crime. If the Iraqis want to kill him for their genocide then that is a different story.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3214)	1/9/2004 8:33:09 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Btw, did you like Bill Clinton's approach to Iraq? I did some reading and research on this issue after you posted this on the thread. It seems that even during his tenure, he had access to considerable intelligence on Saddam and WMD. He made many public comments and even threatened to invade Iraq to destroy those weapons. And since he is a ex-President, he knows the challenges. That is why he has come to the aid of Bush. mailman.lbo-talk.org Now moving along, let us not fail to realize this. Clinton, even though he had all the information about WMD "however credible" they may have been, worked with the other countries of the world. He did not get their OK and hence refrained from order the US military into Iraq to take them out. Bush on the other hand, cares least bit about other countries in the world that do matter such as France, Germany etc. He was in a hurry to go in, and once he went in again he was in a hurry to declare the completion of operations (I have taken care to avoid saying Mission Accomplished) The thief got away into Syria and now what? We don't want the US to look that stupid singly, do you? Now Bushies are pointing to Clinton to help out in the situation?