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 (123446)	1/19/2004 1:04:02 AM
From: kumar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush must make public apology ... About as likely as "you must spend the rest of your life in jail for the comment made". Theres elections in Nov 2004. Why not let the US population decide who they want ?

To: marcos who wrote (123446)	1/19/2004 3:01:22 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What a load. He did the right thing, he's got nothing to apologize for.

To: marcos who wrote (123446)	1/19/2004 6:15:50 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<Bush must make public apology for the manner in which the Iraq invasion was decided ... wouldn't hurt to cover the grounds on which it was marketed, as well, but it's essential that he pledge to work toward greater international cooperation in such matters .... then, convincingly sincere apology and credible pledge in hand, it will be up to the Rest of Us to meet him halfway, do what it takes to reform the UN, get a positive dynamic going .... failing apology/pledge, well it'll be same same status quo for a while in Iraq .... nobody wants somebody else's tarbaby, when they've still got pot in hand, and they're swinging the brush >>>> Too early for that apology, too early to take a back seat to the vagaries of the UN. The point people seem to miss is that terrorists must be made to feel they are losers, to fear that no matter where they set up camp, whether in Cells in France, or Peru, anywhere- that are going to be hammered, eliminated by by the US and therefore the governments which support them or allow then to operate will be most inclined to stop doing that. No hiding behind treaties or borders, no calling on friends in the UN or Nato or the IRC to stop actual action to eliminate terrorists. And even one of the most evil leaders, Saddam, thru "friends" in the UN, came very close to winning another few years to add to the 12 he had been given to continue his cruel ways and efforts to procure nuclear capability. That IMO is the new position or face the US chose to present to the world, to leave no terrorist a place of refuge. To be effective and convincing, some demonstrations had to be made, in Kosevo, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Even with those actions being taken, Saudi Arabia is just beginning to take action regarding their own internal problems. N Korea is an example of what the US will actually do in regard to future threatening situations. If all negotiations fail, if sanctions are not enough, if pressure exerted by Japan, South Korea, and others is not enough, only then will the US "go it alone", with a coalition to stop nuclear proliferation. Some citizens will say,well thats not a nice posture for the US to take, perhaps we should be more ameanable and dont do anything to get the terrorists all riled up and angry,or do anything without UN approval. They hated us before GBW came into office, and for reasons that would still exist without the actions taken so far. But we had the approval of over 50 Nations who agreed with the US that Saddam had to go. Sig

To: marcos who wrote (123446)	1/19/2004 8:59:40 AM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<but it's essential that he pledge to work toward greater international cooperation in such matters .... >> What additional countries committed to liberate Iraq would have satisfied your concern to have greater international cooperation? Where is the international movement now to initiate the development of a new UN? An effective UN would have considered that several nations such as France, Russia, Turkey, etc were supporting the Saddam regime and benefiting from the containment. An effective UN would realize that the world needs Iraqi oil to flow freely over the next 10 years and that the stability in the region would be greatly enhanced if these revenues were used to benefit the Iraqi's and not Saddam's regime, France, Russia or Turkey.

To: marcos who wrote (123446)	1/24/2004 3:46:29 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi marcos; Re: "Bush must make public apology for the manner in which the Iraq invasion was decided." Bush (or any other US president, Republican or Democrat) will not say they're sorry for the Iraq invasion until long after we've pulled out, and it's obvious to all that it's impossible to continue to pretend that it was a great idea, or necessary, or the fault of the Iraqis, or whatever. How long was it before we publicly admitted that getting involved in Vietnam was a bad idea? I'm not talking about what Jane Fonda said, but what the US President said. When was it, maybe 15 years after we'd pulled out? Or was it more like 20 years? -- Carl P.S. War is never having to say you're sorry. Uh, unless you actually get conquered, but do note that even Saddam, though he has been captured, isn't saying he's sorry.