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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (12274)	1/21/2004 5:20:31 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

LOL! The point seems pretty obvious from the post: Bush didn't invent the idea of Iraq under Saddam pursuing or having WMD's or the need to do something about it. And if you can't see that that was the point, there isn't much point in having that conversation you keep asking for. That point, incidentally, is the response to the article or letter you posted. Far from being a "crime", Bush's position on Iraq's pursuit of WMD's, Iraq's past use of WMD's, past horrific aggressions against neighboring countries and its own people, possession of WMD's and refusal to allow true verification that they were no longer there, the dangers of looking the other way, etc. .... those were mainstream views, in the U.S. and elsewhere. The stomach to do something about it was not as universal, but France is never really up to that task. The only difference with Bush is that he was willing to do something about it, and many in the rest of the world fear that willingness should their friends want to pursue a similar path. They view the past and its lessons differently. The number of people per day or per year who died as a result of Saddam Hussein over the past quarter century, BTW, is far greater than the death toll from the U.S. action to enforce Iraq's obligations. And you never answered my questions: If Illinois had launched wars against Iowa and Indiana resulting in the deaths of several hundred thousand people, using chemical weapons on Keokuk (or perhaps the minority population in East St. Louis, to make the analogy more precise) in the process, would we expect or want the rest of the world to care? Would we want somebody, anybody, to come in with force if necessary and oust the Illinois governor?

To: zonder who wrote (12274)	1/21/2004 6:54:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

In any case, I see you have not answered anything else I have said. That is disappointing. I thought we could have an interesting conversation, but it now seems that your interest was only in seeing whether you could get me to think that one president's words were those of the other. Disappointing? It would seem that you're more than willing to pull up the past when it's convenient to your argument, but when someone else SPECIFICALLY LINKS the intelligence that Bush relied up (as provided by US/UK and other intelligence analysts) turns out to be little different than what the previous President relied upon to justify HIS military actions against Iraq, somehow you can't figure out "the point".. The point is, my dear Zonder, that for approx 5 years (1998-2003), there were NO UN INSPECTIONS in Iraq. Thus, the "recent invasion" relied upon the last available intelligence reports, the same ones that Clinton and the rest of the world apparently relied upon... And at the heart of those reports was the fact that 6,000 WMD warheads, claimed to have been expended against Iran during that war, were not properly accounted for. AND THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR (although we now possess the documents, the confiscation of which by the Iraqis was the reason the UNSCOM inspections terminated). There are 6,000 warheads out there that need to be accounted for by more than some whimsical desire on your part to declare they didn't exist, or it was merely some typographical error by the Iraqis. Do you know where they are? Hawk