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: greenspirit who wrote (40619)	8/28/2002 6:06:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

when should we ever attack a dictator which threatens world peace? Good question. They way I look at it, other than Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is the only Arab leader who stands a chance of appealing to the "Arab Street", mainly through perpetuating rhetoric against Israel. We've either "taken care" of Bin Laden, or sent him into deep cover, but Saddam still continues to maintain his aggressive stance. Any UN weapons inspector will require serious teeth. It will have to be intrusive, wide-ranging, and transparent. It will HAVE TO INCLUDE Saddam's palace complexes. And there will have to be some less than arbitrary standard for what constitutes compliance. But what I fear is a return to the previous low-quality inspections where we were ready to declare Iraq compliant until some Iraqi defectors tipped us off as to where Saddam had hidden some WMD materials. Hawk

To: greenspirit who wrote (40619)	8/28/2002 6:27:12 PM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

>>Being the world's only superpower places a unique responsibility on our shoulders. Sometimes we must lead where others are unable or unwilling to. << It is the first responsibility of our government to remain consistent to what made it a superpower: its constitutional government, by which we gained human freedoms that others are wont to suppress. If, in pursuit of a greater responsibility to the world, we surrender some freedoms, it suggests we owe more to the world than we do to our own. It is a hazardous course to take and the risks are enormous. Not because of the potential for loss of life, but the potential for loss of America.