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: michael97123 who wrote (106483)	7/19/2003 3:59:41 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Good post. The reason why no coalition could be created around the new version of "regime change" as articulated by Cheney was that the US would now be the sole arbiter of who to invade, when to invade, why an invasion was needed, and what would be done in the aftermath. The rest of the world did not want the US to be put in that position. The rest of the world wanted some international body to be the basis for making these decisions -- and the UN was the only game in town, although NATO is sometimes used for this purpose. The US then pretended to go along with Britain to use the UN for this purpose, all the while saying that it retained the right to do anything it pleases to anybody, anytime it likes. The so-called "hawks" on this thread think that Cheney and his friends are on the right track and the US should dominate the world. The UN did not rubber stamp a US invasion so the US rejected the UN and invaded anyway. Others in history have desired the same thing. All of them were defeated. Many of them are among the most ugly of all human beings -- Hitler comes to mind.

To: michael97123 who wrote (106483)	7/19/2003 5:30:13 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Don't oversimplify by characterizing everyone not inthralled by the Neocon unilateral ideology as War Opponents. It does many a disservice. ANd it makes for a poor argument. The apparent grouping of many unhappy with the manipulative language used to support invasion and occupation of Iraq shows a lack of knowledge about the apparent diversity of US opinions. Jingoistic labels fall short of describing the hearts and minds of the US citizens. Rascal openup.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (106483)	7/19/2003 5:36:29 PM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

it truly does boil down to "Good and Evil" "Them or Us"...... the only difference for those pacifist's and liberals that have to intellectualize everything from the conservative right is that they all live in a free country where they can afford to speak out against their Government and there are no penalities or accountability....... let them try it in a Saddam Hussein Iraq or try it now in North Korea, or Syria, or go up against the Princes in Saudia Arabia or mouth off a little to Moamar Khaddafi, try your free speech in Iran, lets see how far the Mullahs let you go......... You can all thank those that died in uniform for your freedoms so that your sorry ass's can spill your swill against the Government that allows you to speak out, you bunch of ungrateful AHs....