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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (11718)	2/22/2003 8:40:38 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 25898

4. Well, the possible next UN resolution is the one supposed to define conditions for war, not 1441. That is why Bush&Co uses words like "the sovereign right of USA", "pre-emptive strike against future attacks" and why it is so important to have some Al-Qaeda in the no-fly-zones where Saddam cannot easily get to them.

To: Vitas who wrote (11718)	2/22/2003 10:31:14 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 25898

number 2- but use only the deadlines the rest of the world will go along with. Iraq is not enough of a threat to piss off the entire ME, nor is it dangerous enough that it should distract us from going after Al Qaeda. I would prefer our interventions to make some sense, and Iraq, for me, and for most of the rest of the world, doesn't look like a sensible target. If and when the rest of the world sees it a real axis of evil, let's go in- but only with UN approval. We may need the goodwill of the rest of the world at some point. Seems silly to blow it over Iraq. Of course we've already done blown quite a bit of goodwill, but an actual solo invasion would only make things much much worse.

To: Vitas who wrote (11718)	2/22/2003 10:33:02 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 25898

5. WAR