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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (37722)	2/12/2004 1:50:43 AM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

...those currently dying in Iraq the overwhelming majority of those currently dying in iraq are iraqi civilians. collaterals. those who have not the slightest consent to this war in any way whatsoever. unmentionables. men, women, children and infant nobodies. have you paid attention to casualty reports of iraqi civilians? it was reported a few months ago by iraqi news sources that there were as many as 50,000. we stopped counting at 10,000. in fact, we ordered the count to stop at 10,000. in the last 2 days we know that 100 deaths of iraqi civilians occured - not from our forces, but as an indirect result of our invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that was contained from attacking other nations by UN and US sanctions and constant airforce surveilleiance and strikes on unauthorized military activity. can you find a report that civilian iraqi dead have risen to 10,100? NOPE! and you won't. we stopped the counting at 10,000. 10,000 is all we will ever admit. i feel for american families who have lost loved ones. but there is a different feeling for those consensual soldiers. the feeling for the non-consensual innocents killed brings a deeper sadness to my soul. if you believe that is 10,000... well that number is still atrocious... but the real number is worse than atrocious... and none of these deaths are necessary or just. this picture from the past comes to mind: homepages.dsu.edu when will we learn?

To: lurqer who wrote (37722)	2/12/2004 8:52:12 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 89467

investorshub.com Feb 12 08:30 Initial Claims 02/07 363K consesus was 345K Feb 12 08:30 Retail Sales Jan -0.3% Feb 12 08:30 Retail Sales ex-auto Jan 0.9%

To: lurqer who wrote (37722)	2/12/2004 9:09:37 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The Consequences of Iraq Could still Break Blair and Bush, and Change Forever the Way our World is Ordered commondreams.org <<...The Bush administration makes no secret that it sees the Iraq war as the prototype for future conflicts; indeed, it has enshrined the idea in its official national security strategy document. Pre-emption remains the Bush doctrine. Witness Donald Rumsfeld's revealing remarks in Munich last week. Asked whether America is bound by any international system, legal framework or code of conduct, the US defense secretary replied: "I honestly believe that every country ought to do what it wants to do ... It either is proud of itself afterwards, or it is less proud of itself." Translation: the US can do what it likes - including making war on countries that have made no attack on it. Such pre-emptive wars are only possible with intelligence. Without some knowledge of the perceived threat that is to be removed, no case for preventative action can be made. Which makes the reliability of intelligence a central issue of our time -and ensures that the use politicians make of such intelligence is not some fleeting, one-off issue that will die with the Iraq episode. Its legitimacy or otherwise will determine how wars are fought in future. If the lesson of the WMD debacle is that intelligence cannot be relied upon, for it will always risk what Blix calls "dramatization" in the hands of politicians, then Iraq might be the last pre-emptive war. If Blair and Bush succeed in leading public opinion towards the reverse conclusion, we will soon live in a different world. Such consequences can almost seem too large to grasp. But there are some concrete ones to contemplate, too. A majority of Britons now believes that Tony Blair lied over the Iraq war and that he should resign, according to an NOP poll last weekend. When the prime minister's trust ratings took a hit in the past, the working assumption was that things would soon right themselves. Sure enough, formula one and the Mandelson home loan affair brought embarrassments, but the Blair numbers soon recovered. This is of a wholly different order. The PM said Iraq had WMD when it did not, and the public trust has been irreparably broken. It is as harsh and as simple as that. Whether it is at the next election or later, one cannot help but believe that somehow the Iraq adventure will destroy the Blair premiership if not the Labour government. In the US, that process might already be under way. Few would dare bet against the president just yet, but Iraq could be the undoing of Bush. His presumptive opponent, John Kerry, is running hard on the issue, even lashing out at the bogus 45-minute claim at the weekend. Al Gore, recast as an elder statesman, is making fierce speeches comparing Bush with Richard Nixon, who won re-election only to be brought down two years later. The president himself is looking defensive and shaky, most visibly in a feeble TV performance on Sunday. Blair and Bush must suspect that Iraq could be the breaking of them, even if they do not know how it will happen. Governments toppled in London and Washington, and the world order reshaped. Boring? I don't think so...>>

To: lurqer who wrote (37722)	2/12/2004 11:52:57 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Time for Plan D? An envoy for the United Nations said that he supported a powerful Shiite cleric's call for elections to help install a new sovereign government after having met with the cleric this morning. But he did not address whether it was feasible to hold the elections by June 30, the date for the scheduled transfer of sovereignty. The envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, said the cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "is insistent on holding the elections and we are with him on this 100 percent because elections are the best means to enable any people to set up a state that serves their interest." from nytimes.com Now that's why you don't want the UN involved. We told them the transfer had to occur on June 30th (for reelection reasons). And here they are ignoring the most important part. Damn the UN. JMO lurqer