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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (148555)	10/8/2002 2:32:02 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Respond to of 164684

Ceasefire.

To: Alomex who wrote (148555)	10/8/2002 2:40:56 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

To quote Jack Kennedy (as quoted by Bush last night), "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." I don't think international law is clear on exactly what constitutes self defense, but anticipatory self defense is not a new invention of Bush.

To: Alomex who wrote (148555)	10/17/2002 5:54:45 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

>> ...problem is Israel has also long-standing non-compliance with UN resolutions << of course they do. dozens more than iraq. israel is the poster child for hypocrisy. when UN resolution 181 partitioned palestine and created the jewish state of israel, you didn't hear any complaints from the jews, because it served their purposes. the UN partition is commonly cited as the fundamental basis for the justification for the creation of the state of israel. obviously israel doesn't feel obligated to comply with more than 40 other UN resolutions which apparently don't suit their purposes. of course many other nations have failed to comply with resolutions as well and the UN has no real authority to enforce resolutions. this is why the UN is a total sham institution and will never be relevant. it is pathetic to see members of congress imploring bush to go to the UN before handing him their support. they are setting themselves up to be total hypocrites, demanding the UN become relevant and forceful when dealing with iraq, but expecting the UN to turn a blind eye to non-compliance by the united states and israel. these leaders are basing their judgement about going to war in the hands of an immoral body--which is exactly what the UN is. a body is only as good as its membership, and there are loads of immoral nations which make up the UN. why should americans defer to the opinions of rogue nations around the world who are members in the UN? there is no moral justification for waging war against iraq at this time and that is why the united states is trying to bully its way through the immoral UN. if the american people saw a clear moral justification for waging war against iraq we wouldn't give a damn what the UN or anyone else thought. we would have the confidence that we were right to exercise our might.