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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JakeStraw who wrote (17528)	8/5/2004 10:47:06 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

The non-partisan GlobalSecurity.org site lists the following as current forces in Iraq or immediate surrounds: I wouldn't say that's the right list to use. Countries like Japan didn't send in any forces for the invasion of Iraq, they followed up much later as a contributing peacekeeping force. The list of countries should be those countries that contributed troops to the initial military action, not the peacekeeping force. Setting aside the blatant re-definition of ''unilateral'' from ''done or undertaken by one person or party'' to ''doing something without the approval of France, Germany, Russia, or China,'' let’s put the war in Iraq into historical context. I'd prefer not to set that aside...since it's wrong. You'll note that there was not a UN vote taken to invade Iraq. He later makes the point.... The numbers indicate that, without United Nations approval, the United States has more allied countries and more troop support than we had with United Nations approval in Korea. Yet I have never read criticism of the United States for acting unilaterally in Korea. Well...duh...that was the difference. In the case of Iraq, there was no UN approval, while in Korea there was UN approval. Consequently, Iraq is viewed as a unilateral action by the US and Korea was not. jttmab

To: JakeStraw who wrote (17528)	8/5/2004 11:43:18 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Why is it you Zionist radicals can't argue any point without trying to justify it by other past mistakes? 10 homeless people from a hand full of third world countries hardly makes up a "collition". Why not make a case based on the failed policy to invade Cuba? You may find the declassified Project NorthWoods documents here: emperors-clothes.com A very 9/11-ish false flag operation proposed in order to start the Cuban war. Unfortunately for the terrorists of your ilk at the time, Kennedy refused to turn traitor and approve the program. The bottom line is that in over 40 years, and in spite of criminally insane individuals in government who suffer from paranoid delusions, Cuba has posed no threat to the US whatsoever. In the mean time, US tax payers are still spending billions a year to keep troops in Korea, for a war that never officially ended, and with virtually nothing to show for 50 years of name calling. A person would have to be a child to believe peace is a permanent condition. A mature adult has to be ready, willing and able to fight if necessary. But only a fool fights when there is nothing to win.