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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (166792)	4/7/2003 12:05:25 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583677

Even so, to do a preemptive strike, you need to have a good reason. Most of the world didn't think we had one. Our Executive Branch clearly thought we had one. So? No surprise there. Besides, I said the world, not Bush. Our Legislative Branch clearly thought we had one. The legislative branch is controlled by the party of the people who occupy the executive branch. Again no surprise there. But again, I was talking about the world. The majority of the American People (normally, your gold standard) thought we had one. The majority American people wanted the approval of the UN......aka the rest of the world.....they didn't get one. A significant number of other nations publicly stated we had one, and a much greater number privately stated it. Still more support the action once undertaken. A coalition of the willing? You embarrass yourself. So the question is: Should the United States, a soveriegn, give veto authority to ANY OTHER NATION over its foreign policy and self defense? Pre-emptive, or otherwise. No, the real question is should the US be permitted to pre empt the sovereignty of another nation because it thinks it should. That is the real question that needs to be addressed by this nation and not the GOP's hyped up, ridiculous concern over this nation's sovereignty........as if THE superpower of the world has to worry about its own sovereignty. Who's going to cut us off from our sovereignty.......Cuba? Its time for center stage to be wrestled back from the right.......you've had it way to long. All these sophistic concerns the right has raised over the past two years are those normally associated with the rantings of children, not adults. Affirmative Action is hurting the white race and taking future jobs from our children bla bla bla......; the UN is damaging our sovereignty and making us do bad things; if you don't agree with the president, you are a traitor and must be tried for sedition and then put in the bad jail and the key thrown away; owning guns is a good thing....you can hunt for coons and rabbits and shoot cans off a post.....their moronic list goes on and on. This is but one more fallacy with the argument of the Left, i.e., the notion that if France doesn't want us to attack Iraq that somehow, they should have a say. This is absurd. They damn right have a say; they are our ally. Alliances, treaties.....adult documents that they young'uns among us have a hard time understanding. Question: Throughout history, which wars have received prior approval of the United Nations? I can think of one. How many wars has the US started pre-emptively? I can think of none.

To: i-node who wrote (166792)	4/7/2003 12:54:29 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583677

Here's another child/adult........... _____________________________________________________ OP-ED COLUMNIST A Fly on the Wall By WILLIAM SAFIRE .S. satellite surveillance is so sophisticated it can now provide transcripts of high-level meetings before they are held. Here is what Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush are likely to say at today's Belfast summit: Bush: Your brave troops were fantastic at Basra. Blair: I'll pass that on. Great turn of phrase — "The power to be patient." That's what your chaps are wisely emulating in Baghdad. Water is the problem. Bush: And that war plan that those retired brass hats on TV thought was so risky looks pretty good now. The media "misunderestimated" us again. Blair: Memorable locution. Now the first thing we want to do after the war —— Bush: Hold on. When you came to Camp David a couple of weeks ago, your polls were in the tank. So I went along with that "road map" to lean on Sharon in Israel. Blair: Evenhandedness will redound to America's benefit in world opinion as well. Now about postwar Iraq —— Bush: You really think we ought to turn it over to Chirac, Schröder and Putin? Blair: You know I don't, George. But I will tell you I'm firmly of the belief that the United Nations must have a pre-eminent role in post-Saddam Iraq. Bush: What do you mean, "pre-eminent"? Blair: Foremost, central, predominant —— Bush: Not on my watch. You and Colin dragged me to the Security Council and six months of getting jerked around. Now, with all the British and American lives lost and treasure spent, you want those foot-dragging bureaucrats to come in and run things? Blair: I am the bridge between you and the three nations that presume to speak for all of Europe. If I can get you to turn peacekeeping in Iraq over to the U.N., I'll be able to mediate between the U.S. and Europe for the rest of both of our days in office. You need it. Bush: What I need is to knock down the notion that America is against the Arabs or Islam. My mission is to show that our war of liberation not only makes the world more secure, but also results in a better life for the Iraqi people. That's a responsibility that you and I assumed when the U.N. wouldn't. Blair: But the U.N. confers legitimacy —— Bush: The U.N. does projects. Distributing food, health programs, coordinating charitable contributions from a lot of nations, all that. And if you want to be the bridge to making that happen, I'm all for you getting full credit with Vladimir and all of 'em. Start laying those pontoons. Blair: But the reconstruction of a nation is a huge task, even for a superpower. To police the despicable detritus of Saddam's regime, to build a platform for a parliamentary system —— Bush: That's the job for a coalition of the liberators who know how democracy and free enterprise work. And we won't be alone. Japan is ready to help. South Korea, now that Rummy threatened to pull out our troops, is suddenly eager to pitch in. And India, biggest democracy of all, with all those Muslims —— Blair: Hindus, mainly. Bush: But with a billion people, plenty of Muslims, good constabulary, educated, smart at business — hell, half of America's financial backrooms are run out of India. We'll put together a coalition that will turn Iraq around while you and I are still in office. Blair: You're an incurable optimist, George. I fear we'll be seen and hated as occupiers unless we put a government of Iraqis in place quickly. Bush: We're not in the anointing business. That's why I said no to a provisional government. We'll start with Iraqi advisers, let the factions work out their leaders, make sure no dictator grabs power, help set up a justice system. And we'll show them how to get much more oil out of the ground and make sure royalties go into transparent government accounts. No skimming. Then we're out of there. Blair: Churchill did say "In war, resolution. . . . In victory, magnanimity. . . ." Bush: And "In peace, good will." (At Blair's aghast expression) Condi briefed me on that one.