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: E. T. who wrote (16932)	3/7/2003 9:02:24 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 25898

I know there is a minority of liberals who are not so naive. I don't notice any of them posting on this thread though.

To: E. T. who wrote (16932)	3/7/2003 9:47:57 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 25898

If Saddam had attacked America there would be near 90 percent American support for retalitory action. The fact remains that the Bush Administration has not proved its case for war and has provided no clearcut evidence that what it is alleging to exist actually does exist. It would be easier to make the case for this war if Iraq's citizens asked to be liberated, instead of America self-annointing itself as "liberators." It would be easier to make the case for this war if Iraq's neighbors claimed it was fearful of Saddam's potential, but those nations are not and are officially opposed to war. It would be easier to make the case for this war if Iraq were the only nation in violation of UN Resolutions, but Israel is violative of a pile of 'em. It would be easier to make the case for this this war were the Bush Administration not so greasy, that is filled to the brim with administration officials deep in oil connections. Oil = money = political donations = power and influence = reelection. It would be easier to make the case for this war had the Administration not put pressure on rank and file CIA analysts to cook the books to make it appear as if an Al Qaeda connection exists with Iraq. It would be easier to make the case for this war if the Bush Admnistration had not lied when it said "Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors," when in fact they were voluntarily pulled on the Clinton Administration's decision to bomb Iraq. It would be easier to make the case for this war had Powell in his UN presentation not used doctored and highly interpretive information, which he did. It would be easier to make the case for this war if America had first pressured Israel on its repression of the Palestinians, which it did not do and the war presently appears as if its a proxy war for Israel. It would be easier to make the case for this war if the Bush Administration were definitively able to get nations behind it. Instead what we've seen are the leaders of Britian, Italy and Spain whose leaders have agreed in principle with Bush, but whose people obviously do not; and some former Eastern European countries anxious to cozy US relationships. That's the extent of the so-called Coalition of the Willing (hey, what happened to that term, haven't heard about it in a couple of weeks!). It would be easier to make the case for this war if the Bush Administration could find an effective vehicle by which to negotiate the North Koreans from its nuclear threats. As it stands, most folks everywhere believe North Korea the primary problem, with Iraq well down on the list of priorities. It would be easier to make the case for this war if the members of the UN Security Council had any belief to what the Bush Administration has been putting foward as both reason and evidence. It would be easier to make the case for this war if worldwide opinion supported the war, which it most clearly does not. It would be easier to make the case for this war if the American people supported it. They only do if the United Nations supports it. And, finally, it would be easier to make the case for this war if there was an actual reason for doing it. Did I leave anything out?