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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck who wrote (2203)	3/25/2003 12:38:55 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37218

I'm conflicted about it myself, of course, as are all of us who make even the most feeble attempt at thought .... you can see intelligent pro-war people admitting the dangers of actions in this style and schedule, and you can see the more discerning of those who oppose the attack being able to see the arguments in favour of it ... i'm opposed, but can recognise degrees of validity in some of those arguments as well ..... there is no black and white, it's all shades of grey, the decision of each person or nation comes down according to how they weigh the balance of factors Outside the war-now-war-always crowd and the vacuous perma-peaceniks, i think we can all agree that inaction is not an option, there must be action and it must be applied discerningly .... it's defining the adverb there that is the rub With a genuinely multilateral force you could take and hold Iraq quicker and cleaner, i believe, and quite possibly with very little or no bloodshed .... danes and canucks and kiwis can do what the US cannot, because we are in no way tarred with the brush of imperialism ..... but it would have to be a true coalition of democracies, to evade completely any real or imagined taint of being controlled from the back rooms of Washington