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.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moonray who wrote (12784)	2/13/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22053

The U.S. won't be able to do anything effective in Iraq with Clinton as our President. The American people may think he's had something to do with how well our economy is doing. BUT the world's leaders don't have any respect for the guy, and because of that the coalition has fallen apart. If we could take out Iraq's weapons of mass destruction...we'd have done it already. So we find ourselves with only one choice left, take out the man!...Sorry, but there is no world support for that. And the ROO-SKIs are totally against us. Geez are they ever bad business people...don't they realize if we destroy Iraq's weapons building equipment...they can sell them new stuff...again!

To: Moonray who wrote (12784)	2/14/1998 12:26:00 AM
From: Bo Bob Brain	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 22053

Many of the people who were gung ho for the execution of Karla Faye Tucker, I suspect, will be the same people who are gung ho for an attack on Iraq. What Tucker did was too horrible to even think about, nonetheless, the same people who demanded her death by the state will sit blithely back perhaps in a carefree fashion and watch the mass slaughter being prepared before our eyes for Iraqi civilians. They may zealously applaud the attack and cheer as the attack goes on. Very interesting; sit there while innocent children who may at some point in their lives been propagandize against the USA, but that's not their fault. While those children are torn up by red hot shrapnel, their bodies looking very similar, I suspect to the bodies of the two victims who were mutilated by the handiwork of Karla Faye Tucker. Yet Tucker will be the object of scorn for people who feel that there is an eye for an eye in terms of punishment, and yet these same people will sit back and cheer as US weapons destroy the bodies and families of tens of thousands of innocent children. A man on tv stated that we "gotta get ready for the pictures of all these Iraqi children that are gonna be killed." Why kill them? It would be an argument, I could understand a dispute in this matter if by bombing these people we could assure ourselves that the chemical and biological weapons would be no more, thoroughly eliminated and destroyed. Even the sec'y of defense Willian Cohen clearly states that we should not have too high expectations. It's impossible to be certain that we are getting rid of the very reason for the attack, the biological and chemical weapons. There is no way on this good earth to know where those weapons are, how much they are, and how to verify whether or not we destroy them. When you consider if the facilities exist, Saddam is not so stupid as to put them up there with street lights and neon signs alluding to them. I've read some newspaper dispatches which openly state that these things are buried miles underground. I don't know if "smart" bombs and missiles or even "dumb" bombs are capable of penetrating a mile or two down into the earth, so what is the point? It would be perhaps debatable, this planned massive attack on Iraq, and perhaps debatable as to the ethics of slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians if we could at least rationalize the end result in terms of eliminating all those biological and chemical weapons, but we can't do that. Even after all the bombs have been dropped, all the limbs have been shattered, all the skin has been torn off the body, even then we won't know if he still has that or if he doesn't have it. If we did know that all his biological and chemical poison capability was destroyed, what about their next door neighbor in Iran? What about Syria? So we have some very grave problems in the world, but I still can't figure out the reason for this attack. In as much as this attack, however it is marshaled, however comprehensive it is will not be able to compare in the slightest with the scale of the monumental attack unleashed by George Bush seven years ago. That didn't even finish the job. After bombing for 7 weeks, 88,500 tons of ordinance dropped on Iraq, they still had to go in with a massive half million man strong land army. Close to 2000 aircraft, 500 of which were from our allies 7 years ago pounded Iraq and Saddam still lives. Lives with a life force flourishing strongly enough to make us fear his chemical and biological weapons lo these 7 years later. Where will we be now if we attack him with instead of 2000 planes, close to 200 planes, where will we be when that attack also proves insufficient to accomplish the goal? Or is it really our goal? If that's not the goal, then what in blazes is our goal? William Saffire talked of another land invasion of a half million troops. It took 5 or 6 months to amass that half million strong invasion force back in 1991. We didn't airlift that army in there overnight. That deployment took about 6 months. If this attack is to start in a few weeks with 200 planes instead of 2000 planes, how are we realistically going to talk now of another 500,000 man, and woman, the army? They are not deployed in the Saudi Arabian desert. It's nebulous as to whether the Saudis will even let us launch the planes from their territory. Perhaps if they don't, it's for good reason. If someone can tell me different, I'd like to hear it. But the greatest riddle is who anybody can say "yes, it's a wonderful thing that we kill Karla Faye Tucker, and it's also a wonderful thing that we kill thousands of Iraqi children."