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 (2315)	1/19/2003 7:16:36 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

You are contributing to bringing about exactly the outcome you don't want. There will be 1 of 2 outcomes to this: 1. Saddam will quit or be overthrown. 2. Failing that, Bush will invade. He already has Congressional authorization. He has already said he will go it alone if necessary. He is already moving troops. Do you really think he will back down now? Ain't gonna happen. You mistake your man if you believe that. What these peace marches do is give Saddam hope that there will be enough disorder and civil disobedience in the US to either keep Bush from invading or to halt an invasion once it starts. The next Congressional elections aren't until Nov 2004 and the new Congress doesn't begin until Jan 2005. That gives Bush 2 years to do his will without facing a new Presidential election or a hostile Congress. Keep in mind the GOP has control of both houses of Congress. Your chances of getting a rescission of the use of force authorization is ZILCH. All you can do is encourage Saddam- -which increases the chance of war. Think about THAT.

To: PartyTime who wrote (2315)	1/29/2003 2:27:15 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 25898

If the UN were to back the move, the coalition will be just that and a far-reaching one, one with substance. Presently, Bush has no substance to justify his war mongering stance. Technically the UN already did back it. The UN supported the cease fire. The cease fire was violated. The cease fire thus ends. No more cease fire means a resumption of fire. But assuming for the sake of argument that there is no UN provided justification for dealing with Saddam. So what? If invading Iraq at this point is wrong, it would still be wrong even if the UN says it is ok. If it is right then it is right whatever the UN says. The main arguments that it is wrong are the belief in the idea of respecting Iraq's sovereignty and concern about death and destruction caused by the war. If the UN gave an 100% ok people would still die from the war and Iraq's sovereignty would still be infringed on. If Iraq has the right not to be invaded the UN can't take away that right. It is not sovereign over its member states. Tim