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: Lane3 who wrote (23375)	1/7/2004 5:49:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793668

We are setting a precedent there that we wouldn't want the world following--that it's OK to invade other sovereign nations whenever they cross you. That's the part of the argument I could never fathom. You speak as if we had been at peace with Iraq before, diplomatic relations and all. We had been at war with Iraq since 1990. We had no-fly zones set up over 1/3 of the county, and were being shot at, and shooting back daily. Iraq was 'on parole' and violating its parole six ways from Sunday. How can you talk as if Iraq were some random sovereign country? That type of police mode seems as absurd to me as it does to you. But there's a police mode hybrid that seems reasonable to me, which is using the military to go after pockets of terrorists and getting a little street justice in the process And how, pray, do you intend to do this without violating the sovereignty of whatever country the terrorists happen to be in? Will you invade only after you get an invitation?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23375)	1/7/2004 6:50:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793668

--that it's OK to invade other sovereign nations whenever they cross you. I think announcing the "preemption" policy was a mistake. It is one of those things you do, but you don't kick people in the teeth with it. I felt Iraq was the right thing because. 1) We were already in a shooting war with them, and really not maneuver in the ME until Iraq was settled. 2) They posed a threat, according to our Intel people. 20/20 hindsight does not take away the fact. 3) It was the only country where the Government celebrated 911. They obviously would be glad to help Osama. I know you looked at the same reasons, and decided otherwise. Reason number one was all we needed, IMO.