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: marcos who wrote (106707)	7/20/2003 6:03:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the tough thing about Iraq, that there was no discussion worthy of the name, previous to the US invasion Sheesh, I remember Congress and the mass media talking about nothing but, for a full fourteen months before the invasion. Marches, protests, speeches, debates in Congress, debates in think tanks, debates on TV and in newspapers, discussion in blogs and in chat rooms like this one. Just because you were on the losing side of a debate doesn't mean it never happened, marcos -g-

To: marcos who wrote (106707)	7/20/2003 7:02:09 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There are many choices available to us at this point. If I were writing to my foreign office, I would want them to do all things which encourage the rule of international law to flourish. I would urge my leader to be firm in the face of any pressure, and to go into Iraq only with the UN. Even with the UN there it is still possible to screw the whole thing up, but the best chance for the rule of international law, AND for Iraq, lies in the world stepping up to the plate in Iraq only after the US makes some sort of concession that what it has done was wrong. imo I think the worst thing that could be done is to reward the actions of the US. Any aid given to the US at this time, by countries who opposed the invasion in good conscience, should be coupled with some measure of instruction- or, as you say, aid will simply be a reward for bad behavior- something I have never believed in.

To: marcos who wrote (106707)	7/20/2003 9:26:26 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi marcos; Re: "... those were the days when they thought chemicals could be WMDs, now we understand they're not, compared to nuclear weapons anyway, they're too difficult to deliver effectively ..." While the lethality of chemical weapons increased between those days and now, their effectiveness decreased due to the fact that soldiers became much more spread out on the battlefield. A ton of chemical weapons killed about 1 guy in WW1, but by the Iran/Iraq conflict, it took 10 tons. That was comparing the same gases. They probably thought that boiling oil was a WMD back in the 13th century. -- Carl