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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (5666)	1/13/2004 4:56:34 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 20773

I rarely see the point in talking to, or reading, people who are polarized on a different side of the issues from myself- Which is why I'm not responding substantively to TP or to you. Not that I agree with you. But that intelligence is wasted on people whose view is "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

To: epicure who wrote (5666)	1/13/2004 5:04:34 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 20773

And don't miss: New Blow to Blair over Iraq By James Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News news.scotsman.com /edit have a look at this link too uncoveror.com Prime Minister Tony Blair was dealt a fresh blow over Iraq today when a second senior Washington insider said intelligence was misrepresented. Former US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed he saw no evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a chemical and biological arsenal. George Bush was planning the invasion of Iraq from the moment he became US President, Mr O’Neill said. His claims have been dismissed as the bitter attack of a sacked man by President Bush’s supporters. But they were backed today by Greg Thielmann, director of the Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the US State Department until his retirement last year. Mr Theilmann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I’m afraid I think the American public was seriously misled.” The US administration “twisted, distorted, simplified” intelligence in a way that led Americans to “seriously misunderstand what the nature of the Iraq threat was”, he said. “I’m not sure I can think of a worse act against the people in a democracy than a President distorting critical information,” he said. “For a President to abuse that sacred trust ... is to me a very serious development.” Mr Theilmann said he was “not as knowledgeable about the British side of the question”. But he said: “I am disappointed by some of the statements made by Prime Minister Blair, even though I understand how difficult it is for a close ally of the United States to confront the United States on the use of intelligence information.” British intelligence was still sticking to claims that Saddam attempted to obtain nuclear material from Niger even though the US now acknowledged that was based on forged documents, Mr Theilmann said. Mr Blair would not have been working on more evidence than the Bush administration, he told Today. “It is unlikely that any really important intelligence here would not have been shared,” he said. “We are talking about intelligence of extraordinary importance, intelligence that can make the difference between war and peace. “I find it very difficult to believe that major intelligence has been withheld from one party to the other

To: epicure who wrote (5666)	1/13/2004 5:49:47 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

You appear to be one of these polarized people, judging from the end of your post, and if you are, I'll soon put you on ignore. Many people close their minds to alternative views. Judging from your post, that may be the case; if so, I'll soon put YOU on ignore. The US had NO justification to attack Iraq using UN resolutions when going in without the UN. Fair enough; a strong argument can be made that the US needed no further UN action prior to an attack. The ceasefire was conditional upon Iraq's specific performance of certain tasks, and they failed to perform those tasks. The counter argument is that the resolution did not provide specifically for military action to restart; however, it didn't prohibit it, either. But the argument isn't essential. Forget the UN. We had every right to remove Saddam without UN action. Why? Because George Bush correctly ascertained that removal of Saddam is obviously the best way to insure that another 9/11 doesn't occur. We're a soveriegn, and we have every right to do whatever is necessary to protect our country. Now, before you start with the mantra (i.e., Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11), you may want to try opening up your mind a bit and consider the following: ONE CANNOT INFER FROM SADDAM'S NONINVOLVEMENT IN 9/11 THAT HIS REMOVAL ISN'T THE BEST WAY TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11. This fact is worth thinking about. If, in fact, we determine that (a) Saddam was not involved (as the administration has said), and (b) his removal is the best way to prevent another 9/11, the question is then, "Do we have the right to remove him?". I say we do. We have the right to do anything we deem appropriate to protect our people. Violate international law. Thumb our noses at the French and the UN. Anything. The fact that we rid the world of a brutal dictator in the process is gravy. The bottom line is that by installing a democracy in the center of the Mideast we will begin the long, slow process of ridding the world of Mideastern anti-Americanism. The administration correctly determined that this is the best way to insure our safety for years to come. I was going to argue against the remainder of your post, but as I read the remaining paragraphs of your post, I get the idea you are just another anti-Bush liberal who doesn't understand the issues. So, if you want to ignore me, fine. If you want to learn, let me know -- I'll be glad to fill you in ...