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: ChinuSFO who wrote (3469)	1/23/2004 4:23:57 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Re: Also. Lt. Gen Boykin, who publicly stated that this is a war against Islam, still continues to be in the military over which Bush has direct control of. Why is that? That's tantamount to asking why Prez Kennedy didn't fire USAF General Lemay in 1962.... Clue: Some U.S. military leaders were excited and eager to strike at the Russian-manned missile sites in Cuba. Castro was also excited and eager to strike at U.S. surveillance airplanes. Russian commanders in Cuba approved the shooting down of a U2 plane with a Russian anti-aircraft missile. The U.S. pilot was killed. U.S. military leaders were dismayed by Kennedy's reluctance to retaliate against the downing of the U2. At planning sessions, the head of the Air Force, General Curtis LeMay, was furious. He described Kennedy's position "as almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich." LeMay declared that "if we don't do anything to Cuba, then they're going to push on Berlin, and push hard because they've got us on the run." LeMay said that he saw no solution "except direct military action right now." Kennedy chose what LeMay called an "appeasement policy." This was without Kennedy and the U.S. military knowing that already in Cuba were nuclear warheads to go with the Russian missiles -- 162 warheads according to Robert McNamara (Kennedy's Secretary of Defense) in the year 1961. It is now known that Fidel Castro and his comrade Che Guevara were arguing in favor of the Russians using the missiles against the United States. They were ready for their martyrdom and the martyrdom of Cuba. But Anastas Mikoyan, in Cuba participating in the crisis on behalf of the Soviet Union, was opposed to any such "beautiful death." The United States had 180,000 troops at its southern ports ready to invade Cuba. According to McNamara, had we known that the nuclear warheads were already in Cuba we may have attacked. Had the military men around Kennedy had their way a nuclear holocaust might have followed. Kennedy and McNamara struggled to keep the military from over-reacting and striking against the Russians, and the greatest of all tragedies was averted. Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba, and Kennedy agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey and to refrain from invading Cuba. It was now Khrushchev's turn to be accused of having no cojones, by Castro, who was furious with Khrushchev for taking back his missiles. And there was no "push on Berlin" as predicted by LeMay. [...] fsmitha.com Time for you to turn your ideological clock ahead!! Islamophobia has replaced anti-Communism.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3469)	1/23/2004 6:18:16 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

chinu. You said...." Also. Lt. Gen Boykin, who publicly stated that this is a war against Islam, still continues to be in the military over which Bush has direct control of. Why is that? Why does Bush allow such elements to continue to surround him? "..... Gees I don't know for sure but maybe it's because he is good at his job...planning for and ridding the planet Earth of radical islam/muslim terrorists or maybe it;s because in our countries we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Have you noticed how the democratic candidates are playing up the religious angles now. It's not likely but if a democrat were to get in the White House this election do you think he would purge the military of all religious personal? Would he make sure there were NO religious people in his White House? Do you remember clinton pictured with his wife and Daughter with bible tucked under his arm arriving at or leaving church services and at the same time as he was playing his cigar games with Monica. Get serious Chinu. It's politics.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3469)	1/23/2004 7:41:56 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 3959

Dems validate Bush on Saddam's WMDs January 22, 2004 © 2004 Laurence A. Elder Did Saddam Hussein and his interest in weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the United States? Just ask the Democrats. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, appearing on "Face the Nation" in September 2002, said, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, I agree with President Bush – he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear: Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate – it is a given. Dean, on "Meet the Press" in March 2003, said he believed that Iraq "is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons." Yet, in his now familiar flip-flop style, candidate Dean later declared, "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States." In the left-leaning New Republic, Ryan Lizza wrote: Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much. ... Dean himself admitted ... that he did indeed support (the Biden-Lugar resolution) ... According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was "make available to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic-missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution." Isn't this exactly what happened? Gen. Wesley Clark, before he became an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, testified on Sept. 26, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee: There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense ... Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary ... When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons ... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we. ... I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive ... This is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this ... There's no question that ... there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al-Qaida). It's normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat. Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, "When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime." Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, said on Oct. 10, 2002, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." So, forget President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the pro-war "neo-cons." Just listen to the Democrats. On the issue of the "unilateral" invasion of Iraq, they make a pretty strong case. worldnetdaily.com