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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (374911)	3/20/2003 11:17:24 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Anti-War Democrats Continue Protesting Wednesday, March 19, 2003 WASHINGTON — Anti-war Democrats on Wednesday bemoaned the nation's imminent attack on Iraq, with the Senate's most senior Democrat accusing the United States of arrogantly "flaunting" its superpower status. "No more is the image of America one of a strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us," said Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, anti-war House Democrats hooked up a transatlantic satellite with members of the European Parliament, where in a bit of political theater, they charged President Bush with deceiving the American people to wage an illegal war. "The president of the United States is essentially breaking the law," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who made headlines six months ago for traveling to Iraq with Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich. McDermott and others charge an attack on Iraq is illegal for several reasons: War has not been authorized by the United Nations; no evidence of an imminent threat justifies the argument of self-defense; no proof exists that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; and no direct connection can be made between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. "A majority of Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 tragedies in our country. The administration has persuaded the American people those facts are correct," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, who recently clarified comments she made suggesting that Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists are acting in a similar vein to American revolutionaries. Kaptur, the longest serving female Democrat in Congress, said the recent firestorm surrounding her remarks is similar to the backlash experienced by European nations opposed to war. "We are severely punished inside the borders of this country through the media," Kaptur said. McDermott too claimed the American people are being deceived. "We have not seen a propaganda campaign in the world like this in about 70 years. This government has controlled the media and it does not allow a voice to be raised," he said. While the Bush administration does say Iraq harbors terrorists including Al Qaeda, it has been careful never to say that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Furthermore, some of the lawmakers' own colleagues, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., both of whom oppose war and voted against a resolution authorizing military force against Iraq, say the president has all the legal authority he needs to wage war. Fox News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report. URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81600,00.html

To: DMaA who wrote (374911)	3/20/2003 11:21:30 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

There is no turning back from globalization. As we become more and more tightly coupled with the world, we risk being dragged down to the level of the lowest economic common denominator. If we want to avoid being dragged down the world needs to be bucked up nearer to our level. That can only come with liberal government structures and economic freedom. It is in our own personal self interests that our government gets aggressive in seeing those conditions are implemented in the world we are coupled to.

To: DMaA who wrote (374911)	3/20/2003 11:24:00 AM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 769667

That is the down side of being engaged with the world. Do you prefer Buchananesque isolation? No, I understand that we, as the sole superpower, have a responsibility to provide some leadership in the world. I don't support isolationist policies like those advocated by Pat Buchanan. But, I do think that we should put a lot more emphasis on human rights in our foreign affairs. It would certainly help our image in the world and would be the right/moral thing to do as the sole superpower. We can still make a lot of money and prosper and the world would be a better place for everyone to live in. I also think we should embark on a serious program to rid ourself of the Mideast oil habit to reduce our entaglment in that region of the world. But, I really don't think that's going to happen. OIL is the most valuable commodity in the world. Fortunes are made off the oil trade. There are just too many vested interests for the U.S. government to embark on such a rational policy that would increase our national security by getting us off ME oil. The oil and defense industries would lose out bigtime in that scenario. Not going to happen.