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: epsteinbd who wrote (41623)	9/2/2002 10:28:46 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Now he happens that he is the only "survivor" Funny to think of FADG as a survivor game... Yes, you're right, no offense taken. Objecting an invasion not authorized by the UN can not be equated with kowtowing to Saddam. And yes, my objection is not that Saddam is invincible or too dangerous. I also don't share the argument of the German government that the risk of regional instability by a regime change would be too big. A EU tendency seems to be to accept misery for fear of change ("we need Arafat"). No, an invasion without international consensus sets a bad precedence which would be a long-term danger for international stability because it induces aggressive nations to just take what they want. Attacking Iraq now, without a fresh casus belli like the Kuwait invasion 1990 or 9-11 last year is such a grave decision that a kind of Sanhedrin procedure as described by tekboy #reply-17552096 and you #reply-17552425 is recommendable which the UN Security Council could provide. Only 15-2=13 and not 2/3 of 71 members to convince! un.org newadvent.org It might seem tedious to get the agreement of Security Council members Russia, China and France but if there are good reasons like new classified intelligence it can be done, and the reasons better be very good because they might result in tens or hundreds of thousands of killed and many more maimed persons.

To: epsteinbd who wrote (41623)	9/5/2002 10:35:06 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

On Brilliant military campaign : before this thing is over, the US could suffer as many deaths as during its civil war. So if America decides not to intervene and wait for the ugly guy to die naturally, I'd be the first to say that it is a sound policy. In my best judgement. Oops, sorry for the delayed reply. I had to look that up. There were over 600,000 soldiers killed in the US civil war. More than the total of all US deaths in all the other wars it's fought. The odds of that many even being deployed in Iraq are remote. If the current war promoters made mention of a chance of even 1/10th that number of US casualties, I think popular support would be very thin, and quite properly so. On the other hand, going from Gulf War I, it is very possible that Iraqi deaths could be in 6 figure territory. The majority of those will probably be people whose worst sin was to accept being drafted , rather than being shot. And I would find it quite amazing if more than 1 in 1000 or so of those killed have even the remotest connection to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attack. There might conceivably be a connection in the nether world of spies and internal security agencies, though even there the evidence presented so far seems . . . shaky. But those aren't the people that are going to taking the brunt of the war. Sorry about misinterpreting your gloss of Kennedy. I get a little sensitive about the collaborationist label being thrown around at anybody who doubts whatever "war early and often" line is being promoted at the moment.