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: Ish who wrote (137348)	6/21/2004 7:17:02 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

So your point is that you think other countries should act that way also (take other countries out before they are threats) or that they should not? I can't be sure. I think you are uncomfortable with other countries using the "they weren't a threat yet" doctrine, but with your evasiveness it's impossible to tell. I think Saddam could have claimed he was taking Kuwait out before it became a threat, don't you? Too bad he didn't think of that. Would you have found it terribly convincing? It's not about timing Ish. It's about having a legal justification for war. If you can't see the difference, that's really unfortunate, but not uncommon. Simple question, do you want other countries using your "they weren't a threat yet, ergo we invade" doctrine? It's really just a yes or no answer, unless you want to make a list of countries that can use it and countries that can't. So what's your answer?