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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (44154)	9/15/2002 4:13:53 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Attacking another country simply because we imply that it MAY be a threat is not good enough to justify the ending of many lives. This country has never been the attacker...............why should we start now? "As Bush just reminded the world, we have twelve years of broken armistice agreements to enforce." The world or the UN has to make their own decisions about what they will or won't do...........George Bush is not the leader of the UN. There are many reasons why we shouldn't attack Iraq openly. Powell, Schwartzceft, Scowcroft and many other Generals agree that it would be a mistake. The people that have been to war seem more intent on a diplomatic resolution than those that are classified as "chickenhawks" ( support war yet have never experienced it's horror). You apparently believe that the only way the US will stop another attack is to use force. I don't agree with you on that point. I also believe that an attack will bring upon us a wave of increased attacks...................my example is Israel...........no country has retaliated harder against terrorism and with more force and they are the country with the most attacks.............if anything is a testimony that the use of force does not work..........it's Israel.