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: JohnM who wrote (66649)	1/17/2003 11:25:35 PM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Washy-Washy BUT I am no fan of Saddam Hussein, BUT… I don't particularly like Arafat, BUT… September 11 was horrible, BUT… The terrorists were not justified in what they did, BUT… Suicide murdering is wrong, BUT… The Koran forbids killing innocents, BUT… The Nonsensical BUT Iraq is capable of being contained and thus does not warrant military intervention; BUT Iraq is too dangerous, due to its arsenal, and thus military intervention is not worth the risk. There is no real proof that Iraq possesses chemical weapons; BUT were we to invade, our troops could die horrible deaths from chemical weapons. Because Korea already has nuclear weapons, we should deal with that threat first; BUT because Korea already has nuclear weapons, we should not dare provoke them. Once a country gets nuclear weapons, our options are limited; BUT why pick on Iraq when, unlike North Korea, it does not have nuclear weapons? The Dilatory BUT The Taliban are terrible; BUT let us first take care of al Qaeda. Saddam is terrible; BUT let us first take care of al Qaeda. Saddam is terrible; BUT let us first take of North Korea. North Korea is terrible; BUT let us first take care of al Qaeda. The America-Is-Always-At-Fault BUT The removal of the Taliban was, of course, good; BUT we installed them in the first place. I support removing Saddam Hussein, BUT we helped him in the past. Who likes bin Laden? BUT we created him. Everyone agrees that the mullahs in Iran are terrible, BUT our past policies are to blame for them. The Israel BUT Of course, Israel is a democracy, BUT… No one supports the methods of the intifada, BUT… I am not saying what the Palestinian bombers are doing is right, BUT… Arafat is terrible, BUT look at Sharon. The Bush BUT Bush gave an excellent speech after 9/11, BUT… Of course, Bush was right to take out the Taliban, BUT… No one is a fan of Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, BUT… Sure, in theory, there are potential terrorists right here in the United States, BUT… The Alternative Is Worse BUT The Saudi monarchy is pretty awful, BUT… I agree that Mubarak really is a dictator, BUT… I don't like Musharraf any better than you do, BUT… Remove Saddam? Sure, BUT… To dethrone the reign of BUT, I suggest a revolution led by therefore — a better adverb which follows from, rather than sidesteps or elides, the truth: Saddam Hussein murders his own, attacks others, and threatens us; therefore let us remove him. Options are limited when a rogue nation gets nuclear weapons; therefore let us ensure that Saddam does not. Israel is a democracy; its enemies are not; therefore let us be sure to support freedom over autocracy. The Saudi monarchy is pretty awful; therefore let us insist on reforms or cease our support. Language is the mirror of morality. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, BUT and its weasel-word clan were huddling in silence, afraid to come out when people of confidence and conviction had no use for their prevarication. But I'm afraid that now the worm tongues are making a comeback, and thus their BUT once more threatens to lord over us all. nationalreview.com