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: Hawkmoon who wrote (136041)	6/9/2004 1:36:06 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Gee Mr. Hawk, isn't it true that Scott Ritter was right about Iraq's WMD? Seems to me the neocon-artists who betrayed us - lied us into war, gave secrets to the Iranians, outed CIA agents, etc. - have the explaining to do. But of course, they've all done a "superb" job, right? A superb job of treachery and deception.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (136041)	6/9/2004 5:40:13 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal.> Hawk, dismissal means not convicted, which means innocent of the charges. Anyway, Scott Ritter couldn't be guilty of solicting sex with a minor [or whatever the law was] if in fact the person he was interneting with was an adult, which it was. An adult in disguise. Maybe Ritter realized the stupid person was an adult in disguise and was having fun with them. I've done that with some people from Nigeria soliciting my bank account etc to free some $millions to get them out of Nigeria. I got sick of it after a while, but we had a fun conversation, with both sides making up lots of fantasy. I was hoping to get them to send me some money [not really] but that was what I was trying to get them to agree to. Anyway, where's the conviction? I'm long enough in the tooth to know that some people are out to get people like Ritter, who go against the interests of those in power, and they'll arrest them, taint them, lie about them, arrest them, and so on, to destroy their reputation, intimidate, isolate, bankrupt, and sideline them. And what's wrong with accepting money from Saddam? Ronald Reagan accepted bribe money from the Iranians and illegally did things with it. Did any Americans or the USA government accept a load of money from Iraq for any goods and services? New Zealand received money for products [I think]. As you know, money is fungible. When one is paid, one doesn't get its pedigree, identifying whose hands it has passed through since being issued by Uncle Al KBE, way back whenever it was issued, which might have been 100 years ago in the case of some dollars [not many of them, given the printing rate over the past century]. What's wrong with a documentary? Ritter did a lot in Iraq. He'd be a good person to make a documentary. I wouldn't and you wouldn't. Saddam might have paid for it, but so what? I thought Saddam should have paid for a UN reconstitution conference and a NUN takeover of Iraq, but he didn't. I wouldn't have thought it was wrong for him to do so. France and Russia and lots of countries and people received money from Iraq for goods and services supplied. Heck, President Bush's grand-dad used to supply the Nazis with goods and services, until the Trading With the Enemy law stopped him [if I have my history correct]. It's a long tradition of the USA to get from and give cash to nefarious people. Anyway, even if Scott Ritter is a sex freak, that's separate from what Saddam did and whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not. "Hey, Scott Ritter's a queer child molester! Therefore, Saddam has got WMDs and Ritter is wrong that he hasn't." I think that doesn't make sense. In fact, it's stupid! The "terrorists" released recently from the terror prison were apparently not guilty after all, despite being arrested and imprisoned. Apparently it's not always the case that being arrested is proof of guilt. That boring old bureaucratic habeas corpus stuff has something to do with that. Ashcroft says that those silly bureaucratic laws and old-fashioned anti-torture ideas are only for barbarian foreigners, who aren't really human; they don't need human rights, they need a good whuppin' to make them talk. John Walker Linde was apparently made to keep silent about what happened to him at the hands of USA troops in exchange for a lesser charge. It seems that some criminal mistreatment might have been applied to an unpopular individual. Human rights and wrongs. It was so simple when lecturing China about them. Mqurice