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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (6312)	12/19/2003 8:57:48 AM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Sudan will ultimately be affected by our actions and plans for Iraq, we have chosen to start in Iraq, the plan is to change the thinking and the actions of the Arab world, Iraq is "ground zero". regards

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (6312)	12/19/2003 1:56:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Let us not point to only those UN resolutions that suit the US and ignore those UN resolutions which specifically did not support the Iraqi attack Hey, Chinu, you were the one saying that it would have been okay with you if only the France had permitted that 18th resolution. There is no doubt that Saddam was in violation of the 17 previous resolutions, you know, the ones that said he had to destroy his WMD programs and permit the UN inspectors to ACCOUNT for their destruction? There are no UN resolutions that specifically DO NOT support the Iraqi attack, just as there are none that specifically DO support the attack - just a lot of "you're in breach, obey or else", with the "or else" left unspecified. But if UN CH 7 resolutions are your be-all and end all, why play defense lawyer over whether WMDs have been found or will or won't be? He was in breach, if the UN had authorized the way, you said you'd have been okay with it. So by your own words, the WMD issue is irrelevant. Regarding slavery in Sudan. We are again going out to impose our systems on others. If there is slavery in Sudan, if the local populace is tortured and brutalized, it does parallel the state of the Iraqi people under Saddam. If the US goes in to free the Iraqi people from the clutches of tyranny. then why does it not do so in the case of a poor country like Sudan, a country that does not have oil. May I just remind you that you are AGAINST the US freeing Iraq? Here you manage to a) slam the US for NOT freeing the slaves of the Sudan, while signalling that you would b) slam the US for imposing its system on others if it DID free the slaves of the Sudan, while c) slamming the US for going into a country with oil but not the Sudan. There's a name for this. It's called "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Is that the whole of your argument? Condemn the US no matter what, nobody else, not even slavers? Aren't the Sudanese responsible for what goes on in the Sudan? Once and for all, would be FOR or AGAINST a US intervention? I do not accept the rule "slam the US whatever it does, ignore all other logic" as a foreign policy guideline - but it sure seems to be yours.