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: greenspirit who wrote (116968)	10/16/2003 1:30:05 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<who represents the war party?> I look at the herd of Democrats running for President, and I see that over half of them voted to give the Republican President a blank check to wage war, a little while ago. And Clark, the new front-runner, says he would have voted for it, too, if he had been in Congress. And the few who didn't, were very very quiet about opposing the war, before and during Regime Change. Only now, when things don't seem to be going well, do they start snapping at the President's heels. All of them, when I look at their actual positions and votes, differ only in degree and tactics, from the President's position. Not a single one said, before the tanks rolled, anything like: "This is a war of aggression, a war crime, and I am 100% against it." They are all, Republicans and Democrats, members of the War Party. Senator Byrd belongs to the Peace Party: (excerpts, Senate Remarks, February 12, 2003) We Stand Passively Mute: To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events... This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter... One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent... We are truly "sleepwalking through history."... senate.gov