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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (154727)	11/12/2002 5:49:06 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579792

Al, then you believe in sanctions against Iraq, even if it indirectly leads to the starvation of many innocent civilians? One way or another, people die, and America will still be hated. I'm with Jim McMannis on these issues. Attack Iraq and deal with the consequences (the long haul, as he puts it), or leave Iraq alone and pray that containment does the trick. Personally, I'd rather rebuild a new Iraq than contain the current Iraq. Saddam is that untrustworthy. Compare that with Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, where the avenues of diplomacy are still open. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (154727)	11/12/2002 6:03:05 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1579792

You can't treat the problem by attacking Iraq and abdicating your assumed role as peace maker in Palestine Not all problems can be solved. The one in Iraq can; the one in Israel can't. The administration subscribes to the doctrine that conflict between haves and have_nots can be solved by violence, in which the haves come out on top. I must have missed that. Could you explain when Bush enunciated this "doctrine"? Translated to policy, Iraq's ignoring of UN resolutions cannot be tolerated and make the UN "irrelevant" but when Israel does the same thing the UN's purpose is not diminished. The UN resolutions against Iraq are in no way related to those against Israel. Iraq is shooting at our planes on a daily basis; Israel isn't. To suggest that our perspective toward Iraq should in any way be similar to that toward Israel is silly. This is a clear double standard that will be very difficult to argue. There are no two countries in the region for which American policy could constitute a "double standard". Each of these countries is as different as night and day. You can't have a double standard unless there is some sensible basis for comparison. There is no double standard as to our position with respect to Iraq vs. Saudi, Iraq vs. Israel, Israel vs. Egypt, etc.