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: Craig Richards who wrote (82716)	3/16/2003 4:13:26 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 281500

It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that. Message #82716 from Craig Richards at Mar 16, 2003 4:02 PM

To: Craig Richards who wrote (82716)	3/16/2003 4:36:43 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think this marvelous ability was is best described as doublethink. To fully appreciate it you must read 1984, but for now let's just hear Orwell on that: Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. There is no cure for it, but there is a vaccine. Unfortunately, dispensing the vaccine is CLM at best and lethal on occasions.

To: Craig Richards who wrote (82716)	3/16/2003 5:37:47 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Wonderful post. The text goes on the refrigerator and in e-mails to friends and family. That's good because they are getting tired of Maurice's rants.

To: Craig Richards who wrote (82716)	3/16/2003 11:52:33 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Craig Richards; Re: "I've been following the posts here for a while and thought I'd chip in." Great post. Some more thoughts along that line: The proof that Saddam has WMDs is clear: the inspectors haven't found any. Turkey is so afraid of Saddam that unlike 1991 they're afraid to support a war against him, especially now that he's been weakened by 12 years of sanctions. Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia won't get in the way of our easy occupation of Iraq because they know that Bush is out to get them next no matter what they do. We won't have any problem bringing Democracy to Iraq because Arabic has no word for "truth". The US won't have any more problem with the Arabs in Iraq than the Israelis have with the Arabs in Palestine. -- Carl

To: Craig Richards who wrote (82716)	3/17/2003 12:46:24 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

While so many applaud this email. Allow me to offer a rebuttle. Point 1. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right? Not really, we are going to war in order to free the people of Iraq and protect American citizens from Saddam giving nuclear or biological weapons to terrorists. In the process, we attempted to align our national priorities with United Nations mandates and one corrupt country with veto power (France), hasn't got the spine or integrity to place world peace ahead of their narrow oil interest. Further, France also built a nuclear reactor for the "butcher of Baghdad", when they knew full well he sat on a vast supply of cheap energy. Therefore, the only purpose for a nuclear reactor would have been to obtain enriched uranium. Does the author care to speculate what use Hussein would have for such material? Point 2. Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it. The safety of the United States is not dependent on the desires of U.N. Security Council members. Does the author wish to turn over the national security of the United States to a nation like Syria, which sits on the Security Council? Let's review for a moment the members of the Security Council, and consider their historical commitment to democratic values. The United States Russia China Britain France Angola: Bulgaria: Cameroon: Chile: Guinea: Germany: Mexico: Pakistan: Syria: Spain: Point 3. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them. America foreign policy should never be held to the mandates of the rest of the world. If we took a poll, a majority of people around the world would probably want us to turn over our wealth and prosperity to the U.N. Security Council. No doubt, they would also want control of our military. Does the author also believe we are wrongfully thwarting world opinion by keeping our military and economic prosperity to ourselves? Point 4. Is the author an American?