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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (9959)	3/22/2003 1:28:03 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 14610

yes indeed. the uk gets much more media attention, but let's face it, tony blair has been politically in the eye of the storm. and he has spoken most eloquently and passionately staring down the full force of "popular" opinion. he may yet pay the ultimate political price. but you are right, let us not forget those who have been with us from the beginning. some enterprising person or corporation needs to manufacture a commemorative flag of the coalition forces.....have to be rather large though. <g> edit ah yes....look what i found darachweb.com lots of people at my gym have been wearing stars & stripes bandanas....i've been looking for a union jack

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (9959)	3/22/2003 7:50:41 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 14610

My views on Iraq I support the attack on Iraq. It isn't because Saddam is a dictator oppressing his people. I don't like dictatorships that oppress their people and I am happy that Iraqis will be liberated, but this isn't why I support the attack on Iraq. It isn't because Iraq has WMDs. I think it is very likely that Iraq does have WMDs, but even if it doesn't I still approve of the attack. It is also not because they supported Al Qaeda...I don't know if they did or didn't. And it isn't an important factor to me. The reason I support the attack on Iraq is that they have voiced their interest in harming the U.S, we know that they have the means to do so and they have supported the type of people who use the same tactics used on 9/11/2001. No, they don't have the ability to send a missile halfway around the world and nor do they have the ability to get their navy or airforce into striking distance of the US. But on September 11th 2001, the blueprint was published on how to attack the U.S. It changed the rules on how the U.S. must defend itself. That defense has to be more proactive. Should we go after other dictators who oppress their people? In my opinion, only if they threaten the U.S. and if we consider it a viable threat. Should we go after every country that is developing WMDs? Only if they threaten the U.S. and if we consider it a viable threat. So, I don't consider our actions in Iraq to be an atruistic liberation of the Iraqi people. That is a nice byproduct, but our goal is selfish. As it should be. President Bush is defending the U.S. He is building a strong defense by having a strong offense. I don't think we ever needed UN approval for our actions in Iraq. I think it was a good thing that we asked for it so that we could identify who are our allies and who we cannot count on in a pinch. I don't think that there is any point in consulting with the UN for anything in the future. I think that President Bush developed an insight on the situation very early on and that he has remained true to it regardless of public and international approval. Though I didn't vote for him, I am proud that he is our President. (no, I didn't vote for Gore, I voted Libertarian)