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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (7216)	9/23/2002 8:39:06 PM
From: abuelita	Respond to of 89467

LOL!

To: Mannie who wrote (7216)	9/23/2002 8:49:14 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Deep, insightful, thought provoking, logical, convincing. Just kidding <gg>!

To: Mannie who wrote (7216)	9/23/2002 11:45:27 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Asking questions / Why assume that war must be waged? Lead Editorial Minneapolis Star-Tribune Published Sep 24, 2002 What is it, exactly, that makes America a democracy? It isn't just the people's right to choose who will run the government. Unless properly watched, even elected leaders can turn into autocrats. No, what really assures democratic rule isn't just exercising one's vote but exercising one's voice. Only when citizens speak up do leaders feel obliged to heed the public will. This fact must be kept in mind as U.S. leaders inch toward war with Iraq -- a war that the White House seems to consider essential. That the need has yet to be proved ought to matter to Congress and constituents alike. Yet few lawmakers and layfolk seem willing to demand that the Bush administration explain just why it makes sense to go after Saddam Hussein just now. Well, some are willing. As Maureen Dowd notes on the opposite page, Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton served as Donald Rumsfeld's chief challenger when the defense secretary stopped by the Senate last week. But things have come to a pretty pass when the junior senator from Minnesota stands virtually alone in questioning the wisdom of a mad rush to war. Too many of his fellow Americans seem to have swallowed whole the feeble proposition that toppling Iraq's pernicious regime is a holy American obligation -- a task beyond questioning. But why are they swallowing? The world is full of dictators, more than a few of whom have their hands on venomous weapons. Americans who buy the line that Baghdad alone is especially worth bombing -- and that bombing is the only answer to Iraqi recalcitrance -- are forsaking their duty to ask questions: Why Iraq? Why now? Can the United States effectively wage war on Iraq and root out Al-Qaida at the same time? Where's the real evidence for the necessity of a war on Iraq? How can we be sure what it will accomplish? What of the massive loss of life it could entail? Is the United States equipped to handle its aftermath? For that matter, why is this an American enterprise? If Iraq indeed poses a global threat, why not let the United Nations take the lead? Sensible questions all, but who is asking them? Not congressional leaders. Indeed, most onlookers seem to regard the coming of war against Iraq as a foregone conclusion. But why must it be so? Why do so many Americans, who so prize their independence of thought, act like sheep when the White House mentions Iraq? One sad casualty of Sept. 11 has been the concept that dissent is often a patriotic act. These days, challenging the White House has become tantamount to treason. But Americans can't go along with such nonsense. If spilling blood in Iraq is justified, the case must be proved against the strongest of challenges. Americans must express their every doubt, and the promoters of war must allay them. Only then can the first volley be launched. In a democracy, that's how the process works. startribune.com