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

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134057)	5/23/2004 12:14:28 PM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, are you interested in discussion, or just semantic debates? If you're keeping score, you're the only one who is. Go back and read Sec. Powell's 5 Feb 2003 UN speech and please tell us where anything he said about the state of Iraq WMD programs before the current war (oops, sorry, forgot "Mission Accomplished!") was launched. You know the one...the one Powell now says was based on fabricated (by the INC) intelligence. The one his friend and deputy, Rich Armitage, now says "is a source of great distress to the Secretary." Mobile BW labs? Sarin production lines? 6,000 CW-filled artillery shells? Reconstituted nuclear program? Centrifuges?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134057)	5/23/2004 12:22:24 PM
From: blue red	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Care to explain to Kurdish residents of Halabja about how Saddam's wmds never existed?>> That was in the '80s, Nadine. Do you not know that when Saddam had the WMDs destroyed is much discussed, and the date cited by Hans Blix is 1991?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134057)	5/23/2004 12:48:19 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Your cheesy debate tricks never cease to amaze. Sarmad did not say that "Saddam's wmds never existed". But you can make up whatever straw man you want to argue against, that's what you're good at. I'm tempted to go digging up past tributes to Chalabi from the faithful as a counterpoint, but I'm sure there's some glib "facts and logic" rebuttal at hand for that, too.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134057)	5/23/2004 1:01:43 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Respond to of 281500

You are on my ignore list because you have been a flagrant distorter with whom discussion is useless. I became aware of your reply to me because I saw it mentioned in another person's post. I don't read your posts nor do I intend to reply to any more of them.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (134057)	5/23/2004 1:06:51 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It appears that foreign countries are in a position to affect our own elections. The Saudis and their oil prices would be most effective at doing that, and by increasing production they would be helping the present Administration by an improvement in out economy. Our foreign policies in regard to trade agreements , IMF participation, loans, defense and trade agreements all come into play. If we have treated other nations fairly and stated intentions clearly, then overall they would be inclined to support the present Administration rather than go with an unknown group of new people. In the oil producing nations, we have removed Saddam as a threat to Kuwait, to Saudi Arabia, to Iran, and to those who wish to build new pipelines across the region. Do the Saudis and Kuwaitis want us to leave Iraq early and see a civil war develop with a return to instability on their borders? How about those countries like France or Germany who wish to participate in the development of the Iraqi oil industry? A civil war in Iraq would end that hope. It is not so much as case as whether the Arab people hate us or not, huge segments of Arab Nations hate their own leaders, and nearly 50 % of Americans 'hate' their own government ( 80% if your read this thread) We will find out in the next few months of oil prices and goods prices and their effect on our economy whether other countries leaders prefer a regime change in America. Sig