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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (22144)	12/30/2003 11:52:43 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793665

MSI, There were two alternative views prior to the invasion of iraq. I am in the opposite camp from you. But in analysing the war and its aftermath, i understand that both proposed courses of action had advantages and disadvantages. Every time i learn of an american casualty, i momentarily tip to the alternate view. Some folks on both sides refuse to admit what to me is the obvious fact that there was more than one viable alternative. Given the lack of wmds, saddam probably could have been contained better than i thought. But conversely given the horrors of saddam, its a good thing that he is gone. But this now historical argument between us is almost irrlevent to the new situation on the ground that we now have to deal with. We should all be answering the question what to do now?? This is where the democrats and liberals produce nothing. Bush admin answers don't always answer all the open questions but at least it is an attempt. Rumsfeld isnt a popular guy for everyone but the fact that he is obviously conflicted is a good thing. From the left, I would like to see something better than "getting permission from the UN"(dean) or giving the europeans "the right of first refusal"(clark) or kerry's daily change of opinion for that matter. It is high time for the democrats to do this. Who knows they may even convince some of us on the opposite side if they produced an alternative strategy that made some sense. Mike

To: MSI who wrote (22144)	12/30/2003 5:36:35 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793665

"Iraq was a defeated, subjugated country, undergoing inspections." Message 19637789 Message 19639202 "As far as the violation of UN resolutions, Israel has violated more" Hogwash

To: MSI who wrote (22144)	12/30/2003 6:23:43 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793665

As far as the violation of UN resolutions, Israel has violated more, I would wager that the facts speak against this comment. There are 2 kinds of UN resolutions : The UN General Assembly Resolutions, and the UN Security Council Resolutions. The General Assembly Resolutions are non-binding resolutions. The Security Council resolutions are binding resolutions. With the US having veto power in the Security Council, do you really think a resolution that would be disadvantageous to Israel would not be vetoed by the US, in the Security Council ?