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: Rollcast... who wrote (70152)	1/30/2003 12:06:02 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

What about numbers favoring going to war only if we have an coalition of invulnerable allies, as opposed to merely vulnerable ones? Got any of those? ;-) bland@settingthehoopshigherandhigher.net

To: Rollcast... who wrote (70152)	1/30/2003 10:52:36 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

. . . .but the resolve is there with or without the UN . . . The UN question is not one of resolve but rather of the consequences for the US should it decide to go without UNSC approval and/or without wide global support. We increase the breadth and depth of the growing perception that we are an outlaw nation (pretty tough words but those kind now appear to be on the rise in heretofore reasonable circles abroad), bent on using our military for our own preemptive purposes rather than joining the rest of the globe in attempting to make it a more peaceful place. The perception is that our preemptive justifications increase the likelihood that others will use the same--Pakistan and India jump immediately to most observers minds; and that the perception of an absence of widespread legitimacy for an Iraqi attack multiplies vulnerability to terrorists rather than reduces it.