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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (12364)	4/11/2003 4:12:04 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Because it is the right thing to do I thought you were going to explain how it is in the interests of the US. As you have pointed out, US acts out of its own interests and that is the right thing to do. I would like to see how this applies to their unconditional support of the US at obvious cost to themselves. I think that the U.S. has basically enabled the Palestinian "bad behavior" by protecting them from having to be accountable for their actions I could argue the same for Israel. The only reason why they are so bold in their occupation of Palestinian territories is that they know US is covering their backs. Because you aren't aware of the evidence, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist You sound like my elementary school teacher trying to convince me of the existence of God :-) The fact of the matter is that most people (rightfully) demand proof for the existence of something. The burden of proof is not, and has never been, on the person who questions its existence. "Innocent until proven guilty" and all that, you know. So the US had to provide evidence for the existence of WMDs, ties to Al-Qaeda, etc. It is understandable that, given the absence of conclusive proof to support the US theories, most countries found it difficult to believe their allegations. you can explain satisfactorially why the UN didn't follow through on its responsibilities for 12 years of Iraq defying UN resolutions, I'll be able to respond a little more clearly Why is your explanation of the absence of proof dependent on my abilities to explain a completely unrelated point? If Iraq were the only country defying UN resolutions, I would perhaps have to find excuses for why they were not enforced in the case of Iraq. Actually, a stronger point for your argument would be that Iraq made a pact with the UN giving up its sovereignty in part, to comply with the disarmement requirements at the end of the Gulf War. (You are welcome :-) There, I would agree that Iraq broke the agreement it made with the UN. However, as the counterparty to that agreement, the UN (not the US) was the authority to decide on what to do about it. As it stands now, they do not agree that an invasion is the correct punishment for the crime. "David" is improvising to be "Goliath". How? This requires "Goliath" to improvise as well, if he wants to survive I understand. However, some of these "improvisations" include changes in acceptable behaviour (such as "preemptive" action) that are bound to cause much grief for the world. The US has to be a bit more careful in the repercussions of its improvisations, imho. >>>The focus should be on the "war against terrorism", and the US cannot do that alone.<<< In your opinion, of course Of course. But would you disagree? Just how would the "war against terrorism" succeed if the other countries do not cooperate in finding and giving up terrorists that may be holed up in their own territory? I am certain that their war on terrorism would equate to providing a villa on the Med for OBL and his pals That's where I am, and I can assure you, there are no long bearded crazies around here :-)