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: jlallen who wrote (38116)	8/16/2002 10:18:57 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Policy debate is a good thing. A war should never be launched without a vigorous debate. And Bush has yet to lay out his case in its entirety.... I don't see Scowcroft and Kissinger's comments as necessarily ruling out action and containing good advice that we need to analyze all the ramifications before we act. I agree but the analysis of all the ramifications, if done seriously, might well lead to a decision not to act. One of the more troubling comments in that New York Times article was Richard Perle's. Perle is quoted as saying, what I said yesterday, that Bush will decide he has to invade Iraq in order to save face. Though Perle actually makes it sound more like a threat to Bush. Several of these Republicans are saying it doesn't make sense to attack if you aren't prepared to see the thing through to the end, that is take seriously the role of what sort of state follows. I gather they don't think the present administration would do so. If that's the opposition argument for the moment, one can generalize that to say that the US generally does not. We have stayed in some places, but generally we do not. And, for not bad reasons. If we stay we are soon viewed as occupiers. Except, again for certain obvious exceptions.

To: jlallen who wrote (38116)	8/16/2002 10:22:54 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

A war should never be launched without a vigorous debate. And Bush has yet to lay out his case in its entirety.... I agree. This should be one war in which Congressional approval is needed. This isnt a case where immediate action (as in tomorrow) should be necessary. A couple of weeks of debate by Congress with Bush clearly laying out his case to the people should be a prerequisite for action. At least for me, Congressional approval would bring far more legitimacy than hoping that France agrees with what we are doing. Slacker