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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marginmike who wrote (191465)	9/11/2002 12:40:48 PM
From: JRI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

The smartest case that Bush can make tomorrow...is to totally focus on the fact that Iraq never fulfilled conditions of the U.N. brokered agreement from the '91 war. Being in violation of the agreement is STRONG, STRONG leverage for the Bush argument, and is a winnable debating point with Euro opposition to unilateral U.S. action...Its weaker to focus on suspicions of his involvement w/Al Queda, etc. I still think we'd be better off exacting continued inspections- which our allies are willing to support (w/no limits where they can go.....buffered by a UN-led armed force to accompany inspectors....palaces no longer off limits, etc.). If Saddam refuses, then I think you get a U.S.-led world coalition war, and everyone (politically happy). We should seek the "inspectors, everywhere" first....simply because if Saddam has even 1/10 the stuff we suspect, he'll get caught in the inspection process (no way he'll be able to hide all...if the inspectors have full reign), and Saddam will be found out...

To: marginmike who wrote (191465)	9/11/2002 10:31:05 PM
From: verdad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

A great deal of the world seems to believe that the US had 911 coming. Frankly, after working with several former CIA agents and learning of the ops they conducted in Afganistan several years before 911 (as mentioned by Noam Chomsky), its not hard to see that violence begats violence. Where do all these 'bad' men come from? It seems US as much creates them (either fictitously or through abuse) as they 'exist'. Like Napoleon with his extended battle lines at Waterloo, the US may be ill-advised to conduct war on a broad scale unless there is an underlying, unilaterally justifiable cause that a great deal of world powers acknowledge and believe in. Due to some of the atrocities commited by U.S. forces in the Middle East, more may oppose action as support it. For if the current Bush administration leads the U.S. into ill-conceived and unpopular conflicts around the globe, they may only succeed in removing any legitimacy the U.S. once had as a world power. And in so doing, they will not only accelerate any adverse economic conditions, but will certainly bring them upon the U.S. directly. Now is a time for skilled diplomacy, not brutal force or egocentricism that may alienate potential allies. Frankly, all allies need the U.S. and vice versa right now. The Internet has created the ability for large groups of diverse people to communicate directly. Govts therefore must govern with greater integrity, lest they lose any legitimacy they may have. Methods that 'worked' in the past (with limited results) may not be as effective today; likewise, expectations may have to be adjusted until suitable solutions are crafted.