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: PartyTime who wrote (14263)	3/1/2003 11:05:48 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

In London, war debate roars; Washington's whispers csmonitor.com <<...So, why do American lawmakers seem to be fiddling while Brits fume? Analysts point to several explanations. One is that Sept. 11 profoundly shifted the terms of foreign-policy debate in the United States. "Before 9/11, a vote against going to war might have courted unpopularity, but it didn't carry with it a suggestion of lack of patriotism or concern about the national security of America," says Mr. Baker of Rutgers. The last time Congress debated the nation's policy on the use of force in Iraq Oct. was 11, 2002, just before Bush made his case to the United Nations - and few lawmakers are eager to take it up again. Democrats worry that a new debate and vote on the war would give President Bush and Republicans cover in the next election if the war goes badly. Instead, Democrats are delivering a spate of nuanced position papers on the war "You won't see a debate officially on the floor of the Senate or House, but unofficially and publicly in speeches, there is quite a bit of debate about it," says Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, just back from trip to South Korea with Secretary of State Colin Powell. He credits such behind-the-scenes pressure with convincing the Bush administration that it needed more international support before going to war. The trouble is, he adds, these behind-the-scenes discussions don't "serve the American people" as well as a debate on the floor of the Senate...>>

To: PartyTime who wrote (14263)	3/1/2003 12:29:57 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

PT re: in a surprise effort to try and catch the US when it is most vulnerable, sitting in the desert encircling Baghdad If there would be any moves in the mid-war on syrian side then Israel would enter the war and Syrian army would last at best a day or so. US carriers would take care of any Iranian attempt to cross the border and once Israel would finish with Syria they would send the troops against Iraq. Arabs would not dare to attack US/Israel/UK joint forces. So the sneak attack scenario is very unlikely at best..... re: Also, nukes don't have "we kill military targets only" signs on them. they would be of N kind rather than H or A