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: Orcastraiter who wrote (159607)	3/24/2005 10:46:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No they would not. Saddam would either comply...or die. The only difference is that under my plan he has a chance to spare himself and his country the invasion, but he would have to comply. Saddam had the chance to spare his country the invasion. Bush said he wouldn't invade if Saddam stepped down. Saddam didn't take it. According to his later testimony and that of his officials, Saddam was counting on the French and Russians to save him from the actual invasion. He didn't really believe that Bush would invade...until Bush invaded. Saddam was always a lousy calculator of risk. But then Saddam had become detached from reality, as paranoid dictators surrounded by yes-men tend to do. The actual invasion didn't work. Don't you think that insisting over and over that a mere bluff - a bluff which we know Saddam would have called - would have done the trick, when the actual real live invasion didn't do it, is rather infantile?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159607)	3/24/2005 11:16:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Mohammed Fadhil, a Baghdadi, talks about the overthrow of Saddam and the last two years in Iraq. Worth reading: The 2nd anniversary. These days we're living the 2nd anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, an occasion that is very dear to my heart and the hearts of all freedom loving people all over the world. This operation is still controversial to many people some are with and some are against it and many people still question the legal and ethical basis of this operation which continues to be a source for many visions regarding its future positive and negative effects on the region and the rest of the world. It is ironic that many cities in the world witnessed "Anti-War" demonstrations while in Iraq, the people were demonstrating against Arab countries interfering with the internal affairs of Iraq. Should we wait for the world to join us? Or maybe we're in a valley and the rest of the world is in another valley, like the old saying we have here. Our support for this operation wasn't inspired from shallow reasons. It is inspired from the depth of the tragedy we lived in Iraq for 35 years under Saddam's regime and those who didn't live that tragedy will not be able to easily absorb my endorsement for the principle of using force to make the change. Saddam and his gang knew nothing but force as a way to deal with my people and that's why using greater force was the only way that could get us out of the closed ring of despair, fear and organized violence that harvested the lives of more than two million Iraqis and made four other millions homeless, devastated the infrastructure and the economy and made Iraq among the poorest countries on earth, ruined the planet's most fertile lands and divided the sons of the one nation with his racist and sectarian conflicts-provoking policies. A comparison is essential to understand what's going on; I don't care about what's being repeated by the media, I talk only about the facts I see everyday and not only today; my eyes are wide opened to the future of Iraq several years from now. Iraq is definitely better nowadays than it was under Saddam despite all the sacrifices we had to give in the last 24 months and even by considering the body count (that I hate to mention) I see that Operation Iraqi Freedom has preserved too many human lives that could've been lost to the injustice and brutality of Saddam. Like most Iraqis, I don't want Iraq to go back to the days of Saddam; nothing can match the freedom that we won. And let's not forget that most of the Iraqis who lost their lives in the last two years were victims of terrorism not the military operation itself. Terrorism didn't come to Iraq after the fall of Saddam, only if one decides to consider that Saddam's doings are not terrorism: 5000 in Halabja in one day, 180 000 in Al-Anfal, 300 000 in the uprising in 1991, 70 000 from Al-Dawa party alone, many thousands of political opposition groups' members, thousands of people who refused to fight in Saddam's wars and were executed for no reason, amputation of limbs, tongues and ears, draining the marshes, depriving the people of all their basic rights and freedoms. The list can go forever. The bad side effects of the liberation stand small when compared with what we have suffered from under Saddam's regime or when compared with what the progress that has been achieved since the liberation. Saying that the post-liberation years have brought the worst to Iraq is a mere joke and carries all the signs of mental disorders or total ignorance. I believe that those who are looking for a legal justification for the war on Saddam should take a look at the crimes that are being committed by oppressive regimes all over the world; dictators ruling with fire and steel taking legitimacy from the 'Pathetic Nations' and the international laws that bless the bloody hands of tyrants that are rejected by their desperate people. One look at Darfur can make me feel sick of all what's being said about "law and legitimacy". More that 100 000 human beings got killed in less than one month and no one dares even to say that the murderers shall be punished. What law and what legitimacy are they talking about!!? What kind of ethics stands behind this? Silence and stagnation are the qualities of the helpless who would prefer pain and humiliation over the change for the better. Humanity will not evolve without daring bravery in judging and rejecting the dark past and looking forward to changing the old ways. All new ideas and ways were fiercely fought and called the worst names but the greatness of mankind lies in its love for progress. Survival and development were always the outcome of taking the move not standing still and accepting what already exists. We need to change the concepts and ways that no longer serve our problems and dreams. The old pillars of legitimacy and law are no longer representative of these values because they let crimes take place under the noses of the protectors of law and justice. Yes, the world is divided regarding these issues but I'm certainly not going to stand with the side that is still looking to the past and that can do nothing but defending the worn out system and always fails to bring serious and realistic solutions for the problems of our time. Denial is so easy and it spares the effort needed to correct the mistakes and weeping is the quality of losers and I don't to be in either positions. Mohammed. iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159607)	3/25/2005 10:38:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Cool...goes right along with the PRETEND WMD's and PRETEND connections to Al Qaeda. Nothing "pretend" about the WMDs. Some did exist. Just not in the quantities that previous UN inspections led most intelligence agencies to believe possibly existed. All the way up to March, 2003, UNMOVIC inspectors had 175 pages of questions regarding non-compliance on Iraq's part to FULLY disclose its WMD and long-range rocket status, including the status of over 6,000 unaccounted for Chemical warheads (which remain unaccounted for). And although the Iraq Survey Group is "no mas", the search continues although at a far lower tempo. As for Al-Qaeda, what I can opine is that links apparently did exist, apparently with Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's number #2. And when Saddam was on the run, some believe he was apparently receiving assistance from Islamic militants in Iraq. Some opine that other Iraqi Ba'athists may have been actually trying to find Saddam (to kill him), and believed these groups were giving him sanctuary. There may be some evidence to suggest that the Iraqi Intelligence Service was hiring Al-Qaeda personnel as agents. But for what purpose, we don't know.. Ansar Al-Islam also was able to find safe-haven along the Iranian-Iraqi border.. There is a strong linkage between the goals of Al-Qaeda and themselves, namely Sunni/Wahhabist Jihad. As for terrorism.. there is evidence that IIS supported terrorist actions against neighboring countries, including Saudi Arabia. And one could also opine that there were some IIS ties with Islamic Jihad (Abd Al-Rahman's group in Egypt around the same time as the first WTC bombing). The links existed, but there is nothing conclusive that IIS was behind the WTC bombing.. But it DOES show that they had contact, and thus, interests in common. How do I know this? Well, of course, I must have searched and found it on the internet, right?.. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge... ;0) jihadwatch.org Hawkmoon