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: KonKilo who wrote (76833)	2/23/2003 3:00:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Against a nation that has not harmed us in any way. The precedent, the precedent. The time to make this objection was in 1990, when we were deciding whether to let Saddam have Kuwait or not. Since then, a state of war has existed between Iraq and the United States. In short, the precedent you are warning about - attacking just any country that has not harmed us - does not exist. Nice touch, with Mac and all, but your argument presupposes the question. "Oh, look, here's all these soldiers! Right here in one place! I guess we'd better invade someone, then." Huh? does one assemble great armies just for fun, then, or for a purpose? A question that is as apt today as it was in 1861.