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: zonder who wrote (61088)	12/11/2002 12:43:06 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet commondreams.org

To: zonder who wrote (61088)	12/11/2002 1:16:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

zero respect for international treaties Bush has a fine respect for international treaties -- the ones the US has signed, that is. He doesn't have the same respect for treaties that the Eurocrats of Brussels think we should sign. This is what you're complaining about, I believe.

To: zonder who wrote (61088)	12/11/2002 2:43:51 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

zonder, 'World opinion' - you may be concerned with the opinions of dictatorships, but Bush isn't. You application of moral eqivalency between US or UK actions and those of Iraq or North Korea is nothing if it isn't funny. The reality is that since Saddam is actually a secular leader, the pragmatic thing would have been for rapprochement with Iraq (saying to hell with their people). We could then use Iraq as a base to deal with Islamic radicals in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Ditto with Syria. In other words abandon Egypt and the Saudi's in favor of better strongmen to combat Al Queda and other islamofascists. That would have been a cold-war era style response. What would Europeans say to that? John

To: zonder who wrote (61088)	12/11/2002 10:13:18 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Not true, zonder. Bush is clearly out to protect American citizens, and American allies from terrorists. It's just that simple. And that complex. If you really believe this (below) please provide links as proof. Bush is clearly out to conquer the world

To: zonder who wrote (61088)	12/11/2002 11:20:20 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

an unhealthy appetite for unilateral military action to whomever he does not like. The only unilateral military action he's taken so far is against the Taliban and al Qaida. You said recently you didn't have a problem with this. He may use unilateral action against Iraq - he's certainly prepared for it - though Iraq has a peaceful way out - complete compliance with UN resolutions. And now he is threatening nuclear bombs. Well, haven't you heard? That's the civilized way to handle disputes now. That's what deterrence of nuclear armed countries is all about - threatening them with obliteration of their populations. Though it sounds mad to me if there's a less risky alternative.