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: Brumar89 who wrote (4214)	1/29/2003 12:07:48 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

What is a "clear and present danger" and an "immediate threat 9/11 showed us - 15 Saudi nationals flying planes into our buildings at the behest of bin Laden. If we're eager to bomb someone the most logical would be Saudi Arabia, if anybody. Instead, of course, due to deep relationships with Bush, that's avoided and Afghanistan was pounded into rubble, and the bin Laden leadership allowed an air corridor to Pakistan. Just another "oops!" supposedly. It's a mistake to think if we just wash our hands of the Persian Gulf, oil will continue to flow. They either sell oil, or get overthrown. That's why the American Consumer has more power than the hampered US military, if ever American gasoline retailers labeled the contents of the pumps with the percentage from terrorist-supporting producers. The Saudis would be gone, or would change their ways instantly. If Iraq threatens its neighbors, they can ask for our help. They haven't.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (4214)	1/29/2003 9:08:33 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 25898

What is a "clear and present danger" and an "immediate threat - troops invading on our beaches? I have a different opinion on the Constitution on this issue. I think its much more flexible. A glance at our military history would demonstrate this. Has our ability to make war ever been as limited as you describe? I don't think so. It seems to me that you should have been just as opposed to the bombing campaign against Serbia. Is that the case? There seemed to be a lot less objection to that and there was no "clear and present danger" or "immediate threat" to us. The threat was to the general peace of Europe. History has shown that when war breaks out and spreads we are usually unable to avoid being drawn in. Think of the past two world wars. It was better to nip it in the bud before the flows of refugees across borders and formation of rival coalitions spread conflict throughout the region. and the rest was an excellent post.