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: frankw1900 who wrote (58044)	11/21/2002 3:07:13 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

good post, frank. I wonder if you will get answers. When you get to the bottom of most of the anti-war arguments, I have yet to find anything more coherent than opposition to American power per se.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (58044)	11/21/2002 12:48:24 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

Excellent post, Frank. Just when I have an answer for one part, I read another section and have to think of another response. All the issues you bring up are too overwhelming. Your's is such a thoughtful, well-written, informative post that IMO it's the Post of the Day. Here's an observation 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Iraq is, it would seem, doing its best to comply with the UN weapons' inspectors with the hope sanctions will be lifted and Iraq can raise living standards to those of its neighbor, Jordan. Far better option than the prospect of being nuked over nukes by the US and having radioactive clouds killing millions in that country including our men who would be part of any invasion. Bush's continued threat of war in spite as though the weapon's inspectors are irrelevant is not "refraining from threat"ening Iraq. That's not an answer, Frank, just a thought for now. One more thought: Have you considered that the US might have a "heavy handed domination of the UN" in the matter of Iraq not only because of its weight and power but becase it's morally and logically correct? I think the fact that Bush spurred the UN to action to bring Iraq into line to re-allow inspections is great. Continued posturing for war even now that he has achieved that stated goal is NOT good.