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: JohnM who wrote (45989)	9/21/2002 9:33:31 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nor did anyone in the world vote for the US to run roughshod into preemptive action without it's having to make a case for that action. The only place such a case can be made today is in the UN. Same sentiment again -- the UN is somehow "international", ergo it's more legitimate than the US government, even though we voted for the US government, and nobody voted for the UN. And I very much consider it the business of the US government to protect me from terrorist threats, and I'm glad for my sake and the rest of the world's that the US is the sole superpower, rather than Russia or China. And in international affairs, power is the name of the game. There is no world government. John, I know you'd rather live in a Star Trek episode but that doesn't mean the UN should be granted the imprimatur of the Federation Council, especially in light of a long and despicable record. The antiwar lots complains bitterly about US hypocrisy, but utters not a peep at the UN's grotesque double standard, which spends 90% of its emergency session condemning Israel while ignoring and running away from Rwandan genocide and other real atrocities, and has just appointed Gaddafi head of the Human Rights Council. But that's ok because the UN is "international". Why has the US Congress been sent a Bush Iraqi resolution now rather than, say, February which is likely to be closer to any invasion date? November elections. Karl Rove. Bullcrap. Unless the UN succeeds in tripping up the US with bogus inspections, we will see action before the end of year. Didn't you just hear Franks say that everything was in place? We need to get the resolution out of the way, NOW, so it won't prevent action. I seem to recall someone asking Andrew Card that, if the threat were so immediate, why the administration did not try to do something in August. Let's parse this argument: "So, if the threat is immediate, why didn't you go last month?" "We weren't ready last month, and Congress (whose permission we do actually want) wasn't ready either" "So the threat can't be immediate, since you waited a month" "The threat is growing all the time. If you have a tumor, and you postpone surgery a month, does that mean you can safely postpone surgery forever?" "Why not, I don't see the threat. I don't think you're a doctor. I don't believe your diagnosis" "Look, here's the evidence" "I don't want to look at evidence, I don't feel threatened"