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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4481)	2/16/2003 1:20:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

If Saddam had fully and completel complied with all UN resolutions and all UN inspectors since 1991, and had openly proved to the world without any shadow of doubt that he had no WMD at all and no programs to produce them, do you honestly believe Bush would be threatening war now? If the UN decides that Saddam has thumbed his nose at them to a point that warrants war between the world and Iraq, that's one thing. It's not the US's place to decide that, only to participate in the UN's decision. Failing a go-ahead from the UN, it becomes the US's place to decide if Saddam is a sufficient threat to the US to warrant war between the US and Iraq. The business about the UN inspectors becomes only background material in that decision.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4481)	2/16/2003 1:30:44 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

< If Saddam had fully and completel complied with all UN resolutions and all UN inspectors since 1991, and had openly proved to the world without any shadow of doubt that he had no WMD at all and no programs to produce them, do you honestly believe Bush would be threatening war now?> If there was no 9-11 attack, that's easy. No. If there had still been a 9-11 attack, would he have found another party beside bin Laden to blame? Yes. North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan or Iran? Quite possibly. Given the oil stakes, it probably would be Iran if we were going to set examples. There is no evidence connecting any territorial attack on the U.S. with sponsorship by Iraq. "That man tried to kill my Daddy!" is just lame and is not any basis for foreign policy. Now that Iran is restarting its nuclear program, do you think the Axis of Evil will remain limited or grow? This is like a rip in a nylon stocking; there is no limit to how far this rip will go. Bush is a Christian bigot who believes himself to be a savior for the world, empowered by his God and righteousness, surrounding himself with the same people who failed in Iraq the last time. He wants to save face for himself and his kind, proving to himself and others that he is the equal of his Dad. He apparently feels that Muslims have no legitimacy in their beliefs or any say in their national sovereignty. Do I like Muslim law? No. But is it our job to "clean up the town" like the marshal in some cheesy B-rate western? No, that is the domain of International Law. As civilized people, that is what we should do, even if it takes "too long" in Bush's eyes.