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.

Non-Tech : Raptor's Den -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: macavity who wrote (7903)	2/13/2003 11:22:37 PM
From: velociraptor_	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10157

<But while the US does not 'rule out the right to pre-empt and use WMDs itself' it is really not in the position to lecture and expect others to listen to it.> That is my thought exactly. The US has never initiated a conflict of this size without being struck first or to come to the aid of another. And now the US is threatening first strike and dictating essentially who gets to do and own what and will use force to implement it. In the perspective of other countries, why are others not given the right to defend themselves without it being wrong. It seems as if the arrogance of the US, or at least the current leaders, has grown tremendously and the ring of cries from third world countries that the US is a bully now surely has some truth. I love this country, but I disagree with a number of the policies of the current administration in foreign affairs. We are just getting way to aggressive and "too big for our britches". That bothers me and again, in terms of finance and wealth, there is certainly an obvious bifurcation among the poor and wealthy nations, with some exceptions.

To: macavity who wrote (7903)	2/13/2003 11:57:27 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10157

imo it was an enormous mistake to avoid dealing with india and pakistan when it became clear they were nuke-capable. it set a very clear precedent being reinforced by north korea at this very second: the quickest path to "respect" from the US is to get a nuke ASAP. north korea is NOT acting irrationally, they are doing exactly what the political realities have suggested they do. if i were a tinpot dictator i'd be doing the same thing.

To: macavity who wrote (7903)	2/14/2003 5:13:17 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10157

Right now every tinpot and terrorist is on the waiting list for a couple of N.Korean nukes - they have no export industry except weapons technology and the slave/sex trade Yup, they are all following the great example of G-W. Thank you Mr Bush for leading the way. Macavity, with all respect, I think your post is emotionalist and makes little sense. I think it is just another presentation of our old friend – complacency. Not even a year and a half goes by, and it is forgotten that WE have been attacked, OUR cities have been bombed, and OUR family, friends and neighbors have lost their lives. And that the people who did it promised to come back and to attack us again and again. They have no plans to stop, no matter how "nicely" we behave. Afghanistan... Simple question: How do you fight a global terrorist organization which happens to practically own a large mountainous country like Afghanistan? Conditio sine qua non - you need a government which would no longer allow them into the country. Without that, you are simply deceiving yourself and others. I see Iraq NOT as an issue of whether or not to go to war... We are at war. It is simply an issue of strategy, of choosing one's battles in a war which is already taking place. I live near New York City – also a target. I am a peaceful person, but I fully realize that we can no longer escape facing the music. About President Bush – paraphrasing Sigmund Freud ("Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar...") – sometimes, macavity, politicians rise to the occasion and DO act in the national interest.

To: macavity who wrote (7903)	2/14/2003 10:11:27 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10157

agree that the "strike first" is morally indefensible and that benefits to Iraqi people are a red herring ... By the "strike first" mentality we should be attacking all sorts of countries that are hostile to us and have the capacity to export weapons to be used here. It is completely irrational. The only way to keep the public deluded is to scare them and Rumsfield and Bush and Ashcroft are working over time to do just this. The result will not be increased security for the US, but less. It's time for a re-examination of filed policies of the past.