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: Rascal who wrote (45881)	9/21/2002 1:43:16 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

This is too funny... 'Flight of the ChickenHawk' toostupidtobepresident.com

To: Rascal who wrote (45881)	9/21/2002 1:55:56 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

All those well said points are valid provided they answer the following : Is the top Washington Administration wrong by thinking that, if there remains a governing body in a country that harbors WMD (Irak), and could have reasons to associate, even indirectly, with extremists Muslims, then it's better to take that gov out and do your US best to try to "democratise" the country the way you US used to do (Irak rich enough to succeed, fortunately); the alternative being : giving the "bad guys" time to organise and to LEARN!, being obviously negative. That not meaning there won't be casualties. A Big One (earthquake, not bomb), in LA etc is possible too. Can you answer that one, if you were a top WashingTonn guy ?

To: Rascal who wrote (45881)	9/21/2002 2:03:52 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you are referring to someone with a suitcase bomb, how does invasion stop that? Nothing is sure. But if you see someone who has method, motive and opportunity, plus a long rap sheet, who is openly threatening you, do you just wait until he attacks again? You move to eliminate obvious threats, and Saddam is one. If we are perceived as strong in the Arab world, we will be safer than if we are perceived as weak. In the 90's we were perceived as weak. Now we are moving to correct that. Why is Iraq's threat against Israel more heinous than ours aginst him? Well, are we threatening to kill millions of Iraqis and wipe Iraq off the map, and replace it with the domination of Jews (remember, Saddam says our whole foreign policy works at the behest of International Zionism)? If we were, it would be an equivalent threat. I seem to recall that we are proposing regime change and a move towards democratization instead, a plan most Iraqis wish for. Why should any country follow UN Resolutions when GWBush has set an example of terminating treaties when ever he feels like it? All treaties are terminated when one of the signatories wants out -- that's the nature of a treaty. Most of the volume of complaints is not about the ABM treaty, which was clearly obsolete, signed with a no-longer-existant country, but about Kyoto and ICC, which are treaties we are not terminating, but refuse to sign. Since it's hard to make a case why we should sign the ICC (questions of unconstitutionality aside), we get treated to this wonderful circular logic instead: "You're flouting international law!" "How?" "By not joining the ICC!" "What international law?" "The Rome Ruling!" "But that's the ruling behind the ICC -- the very treaty we don't want to sign! It ain't law to us, buddy!" "But, but, it's international law! Lots of diplomats said so! You have to sign it!" "Oh yeah? no we don't." Let's make a list of all UN Resolutions currently not followed. Ya sure. And match it with a list of human rights violations that never merited a resolution. Tibet, anyone? What about the other 34 statements? Geez, you think I have all day to Fisk this stuff?