Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sig who wrote (106438)	7/19/2003 10:18:19 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think Desert Storm would have generated the same crowds? I wouldn't have marched (though I DID march against this war-with between 75k and 150k other people- depending on whose counts you believe)- I supported Desert Storm. A sovereign nation was actually attacked, another about to be, we were asked for assistance, UN all for it.... Now the votes in the House and Senate were partisan- but the lefty folks I know were for defending the Saudis and liberating Kuwait. We didn't think blood for oil- we thought "Internatonal law- that's a Good Thing." The way I see it, preemptive war is bad. Just no two ways about that. And what makes this preemptive war even worse, is that we may not have had anything to preempt UP FRONT. If we find something we didn't know about, that STILL won't make up for the fact that we didn't have a good reason to go in up front. It's a legalistic type problem, for me. The results from what we did might turn out well, or they might not, but for me they do not justify the changes in our conception of what constitutes self-defense, and what reasons are sufficient grounds to start a war.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next