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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (7201)	2/23/2004 1:20:12 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Kerry would have at least worked through the UN to contain Iraq - much like Clinton did. Do you have any evidence he would have done this? He voted for the war, without UN support. He voted against the 1991 Gulf War, which had UN support. Kerry would work with our allies and partners much more - without resorting to the Bush "cowboy strategy" - of doing whatever the hell he felt like - damn our allies! I just heard Kerry say that he supports the doctrine of preemptive war, which is the cowboy strategy in writing. Is that enough of a difference for you? Since you seem to be making the case that Kerry would be a more diplomatically adept imperialist, I would have to support Bush. Bush's diplomatic ineptitude has alienated many former collaberators of the American Empire. Tom

To: tsigprofit who wrote (7201)	2/23/2004 1:39:58 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

* Kerry would have at least worked through the UN to contain Iraq - much like Clinton did. Bush did try. How long do you think a President should try to get the approval of the UN, many of whose members are inimicable to our interests, before acting? Should we never act without UN approval? Isn't that tanamount to putting the UN in charge of our foreign policy? I'm not saying that Bush shouldn't have tried a bit longer, though frankly I think he never would have gotten France and Russia to agree since they had such lucrative contracts with Saddam. Therefore any SC vote would have been vetoed. They preferred to have Saddam in power providing them economic benefits and if he tortured and killed more civilians or developed WMD to attack other countries, that wasn't their problem. So in Iraq's case, working with the UN was a lost cause. Aren't there, at least in theory, some cases where we have to say screw he UN, we're acting without you? Consider if the Arab League countires attacked Israel. Would we wait for UN approval, which given the makeup of the UN would never be forthcoming, before going to Israel's aid if it looked as though without our assistance they would be totally destroyed as a nation and a people?