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 (148559)	10/8/2002 2:59:41 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

having failed to produce intelligence I saw some satellite photos of rebuilt nuclear facilities on the tube today, but do you expect them to just release the raw intel' to everyone and hold a national referendum? If he's convinced the Congressional committees who do have access to it, then I can only assume the intel' shows a real threat. Bob

To: Alomex who wrote (148559)	10/8/2002 3:06:23 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>This-after-the-fact justification Justification was published by the White House in August, and it created an uproar. They produced two legal findings that the Executive didn't need further Congressional or UN approval to invoke Resolution 678, etc. I see this Security Council/Congress effort as good manners.

To: Alomex who wrote (148559)	10/17/2002 6:25:28 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> p.s. I do not oppose force against Iraq, its just that Bush has not done enough diplomatic prep work. The son of the president who lead a 100 nation coalition in war should know that better than anybody else... Ironic, if not yet tragic. << if the united states is totally justified in going after iraq and they clearly present an imminent threat to the security of the united states, why should we be expected to waste time building a massive coalition? the very fact that bush has not pieced together a significant coalition is proof that the world sees no threat and there is no justification of an invasion of iraq. after the attacks of september eleventh, the united states had no problem assembling a coalition to run down al qaeda and the taliban. we didn't need any UN security council resolution. that is because much of the world saw a moral justification for reprisals. the world does not see a moral justification for invading a sovereign nation that has made no overt threats against the united states. that is why it is a waste of time trying to assemble a 100-nation coalition, and a waste of time fooling with the UN. the problem is not that we need to build a coalition, the problem is there is no moral justification for going to war in the first place. the moral basis for justification of war does not change whether 1 nation agrees with us or 100 nations agree with us. the only justification bush needs for a regime change in iraq is a moral one. he does not need a popular one. he should be opposed not because there is not a coalition, he should be opposed because there is no moral justification in the first place. if there ever is a moral justification, i'm sure a coalition will fall into place. it is a mistake to place a coalition on a higher plane for justification of war than moral grounds. if the united states is absolutely convinced that we are morally right in enacting a regime change, we honestly shouldn't care if there is no coalition, even if we would welcome one.