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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (93938)	4/16/2003 4:33:25 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Maybe the fact that we made a pre-emptive strike Wrong. Maybe the fact that we took action without approval from the UNSC Wrong and irrelevant. we have an administration that has a doctrine that states Correct. Thankfully. To suggest that protesting this war is tantamount to condoning the slaughter that Saddam beset upon his people belies an extremely narrowminded view of the events at hand. Correct. Cheap shot rebound syndrome. Sucks doesn't it. Since I am a 'war mongering blood-for-oil sucking baby-killing Nazi ignoramous with no soul' I have no sympathy for those on the receiving end of the cheap shots right now. Can't take it, don't give it out. Here's a question for you.....what are your thoughts on the Reagan Administration, who were aware of the atrocities Saddam was committing on his own people yet stood by and did nothing (except offer further military assistance!!)????? Disgraceful. Like Bush 1 abandoning the Shiite and Kurd uprising. It's the type of policy we can no longer accept; we know the cost is too high. Republicans were not the only short sighted ones but let's leave these two examples stand as lessons. Paul@PeaceMongering.com

To: Lou Weed who wrote (93938)	4/16/2003 4:48:37 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Bosnia didn't "hit" our soil. Where was the precedent to attack them? To quote: "to even think such a thing brings to light an extreme lack of perception by the writer..." Perhaps from your eyes, and possibly others. But, I stand by my statement. Were you protesting in the street against Saddam? >>>>>>>>>>It would seem to me that protesting the war to free the Iraqis' and not protesting the millions of deaths caused by Saddam, is really condoning the deaths. <<<<<<<<

To: Lou Weed who wrote (93938)	4/16/2003 4:54:00 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

PS...you forgot to list the whole opinion, written 2 months after 9-11: January 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS FROM: GARY SCHMITT & TOM DONNELLY SUBJECT: The Bush Doctrine At last, more than a decade after the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has an understanding of its role in the world and a strategy for achieving its purposes. In his State of the Union speech last night, President George W. Bush has done what neither his father nor Bill Clinton could manage. This “Bush Doctrine” has three essential elements: Active American global leadership. The president noted that our “enemies view the entire world as a battlefield” and vowed to “pursue them wherever they are.” He also made it clear that he was willing to act preemptively and quickly -- “time is not on our side,” he admitted -- especially when threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are involved. Regime change. Although President Bush pulled no punches when listing terrorist organizations as enemies, including Palestinian groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, he also made clear his determination to include rogue regimes as targets in the war on terrorism. “We can’t stop short,” he said. And in “naming names” -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- he clearly defined a meaning of victory. Promoting liberal democratic principles. “No nation is exempt” from the “non-negotiable demands” of liberty, law and justice. Because the United States has a “greater objective” -- a greater purpose -- in the world, Bush sees in the war not just danger but an opportunity to spread American political principles, especially into the Muslim world. The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any “peace process.” Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father. It is, rather, a reassertion that lasting peace and security is to be won and preserved by asserting both U.S. military strength and American political principles.