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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (22)	1/3/2003 1:12:34 AM
From: tfrugal	Respond to of 25898

I am unsure about the UN. I cannot imagine the US letting them have control over our actions. Too many citizens freaking out over that new world order and black helicopters or other phantoms. No country seems to want to give up power. Saddam is still shooting at UN mandated US planes in the no fly zones, right? I believe he has used gas against the Geneva convention, right? How does the UN control him? That is the problem with being a pacifist, the first guy that comes up to you and removes your wallet, feels up your significant other and moves in your house, voluntary time out will not stop him. He does not respect your rules. He thinks you are weak, even if you are not. Unless the police come and actually lay hands on him, he will be in your house for a while. Or maybe you suspend those rules for a few moments and blast him in the mouth when he stuck that hand on either the wallet, or the squeeze. Remember TR's 'speak softly and carry a big stick'? That stick, if used properly, makes your words so much clearer... If saddam thinks a bullet awaits him outside of your room with the art and musicians, he will learn to enjoy the humanities. I can't put Bush in the same league with saddam.

To: PartyTime who wrote (22)	1/4/2003 2:28:51 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

What if there's no Iraq war? A plan is needed By Robert Malley International Herald Tribune January 4, 2003 WASHINGTON - For some time now, the American debate over Iraq has focused on a potential war and what should follow it. What is striking is how little thought appears to have been given to the other possible outcome, the one the rest of the world continues to push and the Bush administration itself professes to favor: a nonmilitary settlement. In short, all the talk has been about the day after a war. But what about the day after a non-war? An invasion still seems likely. But we may witness an Iraqi turnabout - last-minute compliance with the UN Security Council terms in hope of salvaging Saddam Hussein's regime. There may be a preemptive coup by Iraqi security officials determined to get rid of Saddam before the United States gets rid of them. Or we may have to live with an ambiguous situation that drags on for a long time, with neither a smoking gun nor a clean bill of health, because inspections are inconclusive, American allies deem Iraq's threat insufficient to justify a war, and Washington concludes that it would be wiser not to go at all than to go it alone. Continued at this link... iht.com