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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scripts who wrote (21732)	10/13/2004 5:37:08 PM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 81094

Ed > if the recent report that indicates Saddam got rid of his WMD's about 1991 is correct then the sanctions were unnecessary That's true. As I read the articles, it seems the UN expected the sanctions would last only a short time and, in fact, many countries wanted them lifted. The US realized that if WMD were not found, and found soon, sanctions would be lifted (although it could always use its veto). That's why the US, unilaterally, announced that Iraq was in violation of the banning of WMD and therefore had to suffer "serious consequences". In fact, the US, without UN approval, contemptuously implied that it was acting as a proxy for the UN and thereby feigned legitimacy. But the US has no right, in terms of the UN Charter, to which it was a signatory and founder member, to act as it did. Indeed, in terms of the Charter, which is also the basis of international law, the US is a war criminal. But, so what, being the only "superpower", the US knows no-one can "bell the cat" and bring it to justice. pacificnet.net > the disagreements with France and Germany and Old Europe were unnecessary and the Food for Oil program was also unnecessary and the current attacks on France would also be unnecessary That's if the US/UK/Israel did not have a hidden agenda, which they clearly did. > Also Iraq doesn't seem as "softened up" as it could be Certainly not if one is considering the power and determination of the "insurgency" -- but conventional warfare is one thing and guerrilla warfare quite another. Anyway, it's also my view that the US/Israel has various outcome scenarios and that the often professed "democracy" is only one of them. The most likely outcome is that the anarchy gives rise to civil war leading to the dissolution/breakup of Iraq and then internecine wars, involving all the Muslim countries in the region, after that.

To: Scripts who wrote (21732)	10/16/2004 4:21:35 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81094

Hi Ed, Re: Either you are correct that the US was softening up Iraq or the intelligence services of Old Europe make the those of the US and Britian appear somewhat lacking. You are falling into a trap with this opinion. The CIA and MI6 had superb information about Hussein's capabilities. This was completely disregarded by Bush and Bliar. For a better understanding of the success of American intelligence as propaganda, it is crucial to understand the role played by the Office of Special Plans. Here's a good start at understanding this abomination: amconmag.com This article is in three parts.