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: epicure who wrote (130852)	5/2/2004 9:37:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think the chances are pretty high that this may happen anyway. So what you're saying is that we can't win against Islamic militancy.. We should just pull in our horns and surrender tens of millions of muslims to its grip.. Am I understanding you correctly? Civil war, or Islamicist theocracy- the chances of both were too high to justify playing dice with the region because it might* be in our best interest to do so.* Well, the "fat's in the fire" now, so do you have any constructive proposals? It's all well and good that certain candidates claim that they will internationalize the matter of rebuilding Iraq. But from my perception, it won't matter... They just don't want to become involved, no matter who is president.. Face it.. Several key members of the UNSC went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the security council from voting to enforce 17 different binding resolutions against Iraq. And I think the oil for food scandal now makes it pretty clear as to why... And why was it that we were willing to enforce the first several binding resolutions related to the invasion of Kuwait, but were unwilling to expend the same level of effort in forcing Iraq to abide by its ceasefire and disarmament obligations?? Hawk