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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (2178)	3/24/2003 12:12:19 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 21614

well, let's see...I took care of the lame "12 yrs" argument: You may say, "what about the 12 years??" In those 12 years many nasty little things happened to Iraq that continued to degrade his capabilities...some of Clinton's actions have been mentioned here. Those actions had worldwide support. If he did not comply with the inspection process within or at any time during the 2 or 3 months, I would have no argument against the use of force. The world forum would have no argument. Meanwhile, wasn't it Hans Blix himself who credited this same troop presence with pumping a little iron into recent inspection efforts? And the troop argument: Had there been a smaller force there, large enough to threaten but not so large as to invade, saddam would have had the choice...which is what the UN intended to give him...to comply or not. And the "France" argument: The EU countries that (I do understand they had selfish, disingenuos motives) were against the immediate use of force were willing to support force if the inspectors were not satisfied with progress. A two to three month timeframe was going to be settled on. The rest of her ink is a lot of blather. And Diana West doesn't at all address the pivotal point...NOW WHAT? And as Blair said...regime change in North Korea is next. That's ANOTHER war. How many friggin' wars???? Will the media help drum up support by tying NK to OBL? Will fearmongering continue to manufacture support? Or will an "incident" appear out of thin air...that one has worked before. Or will the PNAC crowd antagonize NK into freaking out and "necessitate" a war? After NK...who's next??? Iran... After Iran... how many wars before the US under PNAC will need to be contained? What countries' citizens will accuse others of their countrymen of being appeasers rather than take on a war machine run amok? And all the while we'll be living under RED alerts. The nastiest thing about the invasion of Iraq right now is the increased threat of another terrorist attack. If/when one happens, the PNACies will easily be able to justify brazen aggression at will. It's going to be a very difficult time ahead. I believe the best way to decrease the risk everywhere, right now...is to get rid of the whole PNAC crowd. They're worse than bad news. Not individually, personally worse than saddam but in aggregate...unhealthy for this country.