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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (35780)	6/1/2005 11:44:51 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I'll forward your suggestion to Dave and I'm sure he'll enjoy terminating each and every one of them immensely. :-) How's this? 1. What business is it of the US's to enforce UN resolutions the UN doesn't want enforced? Their THEIR resolutions, ferchrissakes! If they want them enforced, they'll be GLAD to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. 2. The only scenario where it makes sense for the US to go against that logic are cases where the US has other reasons to want enforcement. 3. The US had had a bad relationship with Iraq for over a decade; that may have been why. OTOH, it had had bad relationships with numerous countries for longer and didn't attack them. It had had a bad relationship with NK for decades and NK presented more of a threat with its rapidly developing nuke capability. The US MAY have been hoping for other solutions involving China. The Chinese have taken enormous advantage of those expectations and have done nothing to hamper NK. 4. The evidense of Iraq WMDs presented was flimsy at best, and that's being kind. There hardly was any. Before commencing the Cuban Missile Blockade, the US prodiced aerial photos of missiles and launchers in Cuba at the UN to justify their action. No equivalent evidence produced. 5. Based on the available evidence, were I CIC, I would not have ordered an attack. The Iraq invasion has to be considered a blunder. 6. But we're there. A pull-out at this point simply opens the door to chaos. If we're lucky, we'd end up with another Islamic fundamentalist anti-American state. If not, we end up with a terrorist state or with Iraq being carved up by its neighbors- -one of whom is Iran. 7. Like it or not, it seems our best course is to stay the course and hope to pull some sort of reasonable gov't out of the mess. Other alternatives seem disasterous from our POV. 8. Posts such as that earlier one by choosie WILL NOT help the sitiuation. If she believes the Iraq vets will be treated as the Viet vets were, she'd better think again. I and many others will willingly oppose such efforts. 9. Attempts such as Dipy's to exaggerate the seriousness of the situation are also not helpful. More soldiers that than were killed in 10 or 15 minutes at Antietam in our own Civil War.