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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (37016)	8/11/2002 2:23:37 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"As President Bush edges closer to a decision on whether to take up arms against Saddam Hussein..." 1. George W is so busy vacationing, treadmilling and clearing brush I wonder how long it will take him to actually make a decision. 2. I think there is a problem shaking this all down into a "one-pager" for him. I fear he is not reading the SI FADG and is not covering the issues as closely as we are. 3. The media and the country are spending their time covering war, rumors or war and parsing the constitution. I must give his mandarins full credit for managing the news cycle. No time for questions (let alone responses) about Halliburton, Dresser, Harken, Aloha Oil, Arbusto, or the economy, the stock market and the deficit. Also no coverage of the weakening and "interpretaion" of the legislation covering corporate governance, medical records privacy and the environment. 4. For this reason I am more and more comfortable will accepting the fact that we are NOT going to preemptively invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. 5. W's canned speech about the "evil-doers","not-if-but-when", and the Axisssss-of-evil"is sounding kinda thin. All this Iraq invasion talk is a DIVERSION so he has sound-bites he can handle that make him look strong and powerful. BWDIK?

To: JohnM who wrote (37016)	8/11/2002 2:45:05 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

If America went to war, allied support would help dissipate the impression abroad that the conflict was simply a grudge match between the Bush and Hussein clans. Without the help of allies, securing a durable peace in Iraq would be especially difficult. If we pull troops from Afghanistan to fight in Iraq, that will undermine their government.

To: JohnM who wrote (37016)	8/11/2002 10:44:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the New Republic editorial in action. Be for debate, diplomacy and coalitions on general principle, not because you have a different assessment of the situation, and have thought out a different approach. So when the Republicans lay forth arguments on why, for instance, containment has stopped working and will not work in the future, what is the Democratic answer? "But the allies won't like it?" I'm not saying there isn't an argument there to be made, but the Democrats have not been making it. How could containment be reestablished? How could diplomatic options be exhausted without sucking us into the quicksand of endless farcical inspections? I don't hear much thought behind the arguments.