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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (234807)	3/6/2002 10:10:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Jewish-American Zionists such as Wolfowitz, Arie Fleishcer, Lieberman, Richard Perle, etc., push Bush to bomb and invade Iraq: From a Charley Reese article: <<<<< What has that got to do with terrorism? The CIA says Iraq has not been involved in terrorism for the past 10 years. More important, what right does the United States have to decide what governments will or will not exist in other countries? None. We have no moral right, no philosophical justification and no right under international law to decide who will govern people in other sovereign countries. Oh, the government says that Saddam Hussein is a threat to his neighbors. Well, under Saddam, how many countries has Iraq attacked in the past 22 years? Three. Kuwait, Iran and Israel. How many countries have we invaded or attacked? Well, let’s see. There’s Panama and Grenada and Haiti and Lebanon and Libya and Sudan and Somalia and Yugoslavia and Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s 10 to Saddam’s three. And how many of those countries had declared war on us, or attacked us, or had even threatened to attack us? None. In how many countries does Iraq have troops permanently stationed? None. How about us? More than 100. Could it be that we are a greater threat than Iraq? The president likes to use self-defense as a rationalization. Well, I believe in self-defense, but self-defense does not extend to killing people who some think might be a threat in the future. How do you think you would fare if you killed somebody and told the police: "Well, he wasn’t attacking me, but I know he doesn’t like me, and so probably some day, he would have attacked me. I just decided to take him out as a precaution"? You’d be charged with murder one. This so-called war on terrorism is entirely too ambiguous. It amounts to a license for the Bush administration to attack anybody it decides to attack, and it gives a green light to every repressive government on Earth to kill off its opposition under the guise of fighting terrorism. >>>