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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Fascist Oligarchs Attack Cute Cuddly Canadians -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (326)	9/22/2002 6:29:53 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1293

' "Senator, the Constitution gives to the president of the United States the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy," Lisagor said. "Couldn't be more wrong," Wayne Morse broke in. "You couldn't make a more unsound legal statement than the one you have just made. This is the promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States. That's nonsense." Lisagor: "To whom does it belong then, senator?" Morse: "It belongs to the American people. ... And I am pleading that the American people be given the facts about foreign policy." Lisagor: "You know, senator, that the American people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy." Morse: "Why do you say that? ... I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them. And my charge against my government is -- we're not giving the American people the facts." In early August 1964, Morse was one of only two senators to vote against the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which served as a green light for the Vietnam War. While reviled by much of the press in his home state of Oregon as well as nationwide, he persisted with fierce oratory for peace. It would have been much easier to acquiesce to the media's war fever. But Morse was not the silent type, especially in matters of conscience. ' fair.org I just caught some of your comment in re Iraq on another thread, Ray .... sort of admire your certainty in a way, but i do not share it, haven't come to any firm conclusions yet, not enough evidence, haven't read all that much on it .... thing i am asking myself is, were i responsible for directing canadian policy on a pre-emptive strike what would i have that policy say ... just don't know for sure ... but the questions are clear - is Sadam a clear and near-term danger, what will be the consequences in terms of precedent in international law, and what comes after this phase of the perma-war That the current frenzy to market this 'war' is all about the november elections, distracting voters from the dismal economy and its Enrons et al, that's pretty obvious ... just as are the draconian moves against our forestry communities, we know nothing can possibly start to be improved until the polls close ... but i'm not sure that it follows that Iraq should be ignored, either .... let Bush II sell his war on the basis of facts and logic, to the security council, i say ... if he can