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: stockman_scott who wrote (76372)	2/21/2003 4:04:40 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

There is nothing unilateral or pre-emptive about it. There are 18 UN resolutions which Saddam has violated. If no one is willing to take him to task, what is the point of a UN body?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (76372)	2/21/2003 5:49:42 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Scott, I can see that the bush doctrine of preemption might upset some. The reality is that Iraq is not such a case. Iraq has violated the peace agreement and that gives us legal rights to intervene. I would suggest you re-read the Pollack NYTimes op ed piece you posted earlier. You can be for military action without adopting the beliefs of neocons. Realism is a better reason to got to war than a neocon ideology or in other times a reflexive anti communist one. In this debate you just concluded with mikem, carranza and myself you demonstrate much reasoned thought, although in error imo. In the past you have sometimes posted questionable and hateful material from questionable sources imo. Now you seem to be a different guy than i attacked and got a suspension from FADG/Ken. Which guy are you Scott? mike