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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (74642)	3/21/2006 2:24:35 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

More importantly is that no one knows that it happened. We're talking about reasons for going to pre-emptive war. Something that no one knows is not enough evidence to justify that kind of Shock and Awe aggression. I think we need a special prosecutor to find out which US official leaked the "intelligence" on Atta. It only took a week to find it's way from Prauge to the headline of every newspaper in the country. Why don't you stop and think about that! Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (74642)	3/21/2006 3:23:47 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

There is a case to be made, which you and A.S. can throw up, against every little piece of evidence reported that Saddam sided with extremist terrorist elements. You could even make the case that Saddam didn't murder anyone unjustly during his reign (not that I recall you have..but no matter). That's Saddam's current case to make. If you think you can reconcile the belief that Saddam attacked mainly fundamentalist extremists (like Osama), with the fact that he repeatedly instead sided with fundamentalist extremists without question, you've a lot of faith in your dream. Dan, it's a classic straw man argument. Did I say that Saddam didn't have relationships with extremists? I'd say that yes he did. The Palestinians are the cause celebs of the middle east. The Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians...the whole of the middle east supported Palestine, with money, food and weapons. Now you try to sneak in a relationship with Ossama, because Saddam supported Palestine he must also support Ossama. I'd say that the relationship between Saddam and Ossama was limited...and that is the finding of most scholars when they look at the facts. As for killing fundamentalists, I'd say there is no equal in all of the middle east to Saddam. His 7 year war with fundamentalist Iran took a heavy human toll. After the Gulf war, he battled his own Shia majority for power...again Shia fundamentalists. You have not presented the case for war. What you have presented is the case for gathering more intelligence. Heck I understand that Bush has relations with communist China. That they hold 30% of our foreign debt. Does that mean that I can call Bush a communist? That's about how good your argument is for charging Saddam with being a fundamentalist islamic sympathizer, except as far as I know Bush hasn't killed any Chinese yet. Orca

To: Dan B. who wrote (74642)	3/21/2006 9:53:32 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Dan, methinks you are grasping at straws! and seemingly desperate about materialising something. To me it's all hot air and much ado about nothing. Everyone here will do well to read the article accessible at lrb.co.uk (user-friendly version) OR at ksgnotes1.harvard.edu (in pdf) ----------------------------------------------------------- Be warned, however: It's a pretty long article requiring much attention span, concentration and no little cerebration. .

To: Dan B. who wrote (74642)	3/21/2006 10:05:06 AM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 81568

The Israeli Lobby Unmasked And Exposed Council For The National Interest Foundation 3-20-6 Two professors from Harvard University and the University of Chicago have just released an 81-page study on "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" that concludes that the "overall thrust of U.S. policy in the [Middle East] is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.'" The study is currently available as a Harvard "working paper" with extensive footnotes or as a shorter version published in the London Review of Books. The authors systematically examine the facts of the U.S.-Israel relationship, concluding that Israel is neither a strategic asset nor a "compelling moral case for sustained U.S. backing," and point a finger squarely at the Israel lobby for "[managing] to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical." The authors examine the entire scope of the Israel lobby's efforts, from its intimidation of the press, think tanks and academia into presenting a misleading image of Israel to its success at co-opting the Congress and the Executive Branch into implementing Israel's policy aims. The paper is significant not just for its substance but also for the fact that it was published at all. The authors note in their section on the lobby's intimidation of the press: "Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one." Stephen Walt is Academic Dean and Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His latest book is "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy" (W. W. Norton & Co., 2005). According to his faculty website, he has previously worked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, in addition to consulting for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the National Defense University. John Mearsheimer is a Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, where he is an authority on security affairs and international politics. He graduated from West Point in 1970 and served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. Both authors previously wrote "An Unnecessary War," which argued against invading Iraq, in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy magazine. Council for the National Interest Foundation 1250 4th Street SW, Suite WG-1 Washington, District of Columbia 20024 cnionline.org rescuemideastpolicy.com Phone 202-863-2951 Fax 202-863-2952 Comment Bob - Wyoming 3-20-6 Now here is a real shocker!!! And, you will not see this on the CBS evening news. Five years ago, who would have ever thought that control of American foreign policy had been hijacked by a foreign power, and for the purpose of advancing an alien agenda? I mean who knew? All along I thought we were over there killing Arabs because "they hate our freedom." This was supposed to be all about the "war on terror." Whatever that means. And, then let's not forget all those scary weapons of mass destruction. (Those must be the ones we gave to Iraqis to use on the Iranians?) Now, we are told that that we have to teach the Iraqis about democracy? What's next? Well, what's behind door number three? Those darned Iranians, we are told, are building an atomic bomb. Whew!!!! You know what that means. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered, and it will be generations before this nation recovers, if ever, from this madness. Soon the bombs will be falling on Iran like a spring rain and thousands more innocents will die. More of our sons will come home in rubber bags. And I can't help but wonder whether anyone in Washington will have the moral courage to tell the truth? Perhaps we should take a stab at it right now: "They gave their lives advancing the cause of International Zionism." .