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: JohnM who wrote (74863)	2/17/2003 1:48:45 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

JohnM, First, the Bush administration now has a dangerous international reputation. I gather that's not debatable. Actually it is, your rebuttle to K's "when did you stop beating your spouse" kinds of questions is very similar in form and function. Yes the left has that view and is supported by states such as France, Germany and Cuba (minor slip), but the US and Bush specifically has a lot of support from international leaders. The most important of which is Tony Blair. The left's McCarthyism of today is based on the word 'unilateral'. 16 to 18 Nato countries support the basic US position. 1 to 3 (depending on when you look) oppose. Looks a lot more like France is unilateral from a absolute definition standpoint. Polls - lets get to them - sometimes Government is just that and should not be led by or managed through opinion polls. These polls were against involvement in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somolia - the 3 you choose to say were noble causes. Polls were heavily against entering WW2 and only changed with Pearl Harbor. John

To: JohnM who wrote (74863)	2/18/2003 12:10:18 AM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Re:<<Second, because they have advanced so many reasons for an Iraq invasion, some of which turned out not to be feasible or factual, their justifications are now viewed with great suspicion. Perhaps that's debatable but remember the point is about global perceptions of the Bush administration, not simply yours. >> Whose point John? Why should "global perceptions" even enter into the equation when the self interest is clearly linked with survivability? What "reasons" have "turned out not to be feasible or factual". Who or what has disabused us all of Powell's evidence? Surely not all of us are so set in our ways that Powell cannot confuse us with the facts. John, we all choose to believe what we do. What bothers me is how very weak the left's moral imperative has become. Do you really want UN permission to force Iraq to do what is in our interest? Baloney! At least be honest with yourself if you cannot do so with me. What you want is our President to fall on his face. Perhaps it is because no war is moral to you John. No war is worth fighting. Perhaps its just simply wanting the Republicans to flame out. You know John, I don't frankly care whether the French, the Chinese or the Russians can agree on anything much less whether we should forcibly remove Saddam's WMDs. But I'm bothered that people who ought to know better hide behind such a thin veneer. Sure you are afraid of the ramifications of this struggle. We all are. I may have a son in this struggle in a few years. But the real issue isn't whether there should be a struggle. That has already been decided for us. The real issue is where this struggle will be fought. Hide your head in the sand if you will but it's coming to our borders...to your town and the only thing left is to determine how far along we will allow our enemies to develop their arsenal. Had Hitler tarried in his assault on Poland, most likely he would have been first to develop the atomic bomb. John mark this down. When a war will be worth fighting to you...It will be too late.