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 (77820)	2/26/2003 3:10:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that the administration has tried an emotional case, which worked with people who were okay with Bush to begin with, and didn't with those who weren't. But they also tried a logical case that Saddam was really a menace. What we haven't seen is any logic from the protesters, just a general denial that there is a problem.

To: JohnM who wrote (77820)	2/26/2003 3:23:38 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

On the other hand, the demonstrators are asking for evidence, evidence there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam, evidence there is a connection between Saddam and Al Q, evidence there is an imminent threat which would justify a pre-emptive war. Sounds reasonably logical to me. Pure straw man. There is no direct connection between Iraq and 9-11 and I haven't heard the administration attempt to make that connection for a very long time. There is evidence that Iraq and AQ will co-operate tactically but none that have co-operated strategically. This war is hardly pre-emptive since the first Gulf War remains unresolved. Using military force to remove a leader who refuse to disarm after being defeated at war is not pre-emptive but it is long overdue. The UN has demonstrated a complete inability to manage this situation since 1992 and no longer has the credibility to back up it's own threats. Like the Economist said: Any organization that thinks more inspectors is serious consequences doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Paul