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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (43521)	9/12/2002 3:06:43 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That's not even true. In fact world opinion has fallen because of Bush threat to unilaterally, preemptively strike Iraq, not because we attacked Afghanistan. I wasnt talking about Afghanistan....I was talking about human nature. Outside of the US, the memory of 9/11 was bound to fade. People have reverted to looking at the world through the prism of self-interest. This would have occured even if the US had taken very little action after 9/11. We can expect the same even if we unilaterally decided to grant a state for the Palestinians. They would be burning our leaders in effigy the next time the US did something in the ME that they didnt like. As to an attack being pre-emptive, I can still see reasons that we shouldnt go into Iraq, but I think that Bush laid out a decent "legal" case. A casus beli can be established simply through Iraq's abrogation of the terms of the original peace treaty. Slacker