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 (17463)	6/2/2005 7:15:51 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 20773

I think I'll pass on Duray - he's a nut. "Dems are more moderate now. " I couldn't disagree more. The head of Moveon announced not too long ago that they'd bought the party and now owned it (thanks to Soros for that). And when Dean got the national chairman that proved the boast. Yesterday Bill Clinton said he supported the US involvement in Iraq and its in the interest of the whole world that our cause succeed. Many have long wondered how the party of FDR, HST, and JFK became the party of Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Well, it isn't even the party of Bill Clinton anymore. "We signed the UN charter, and we helped create the UN, as jmttab pointed out. WE cannot attack whichever country we want just because Congress votes, if it violates UN rules, sorry. Why can't Saudi just attack us then if they vote? lol" Since the charter was signed we have engaged in several military interventions. I believe only two were UN authorized - Korea and Kuwait (which you think we should have passed on). Saudi Arabia can attack if they wish, and we would attack back. "If you think we are bound to not go to war without UN approval, if the UN authorizes a war are we obligated to fight it? Answer: Of course not." So your concern for the UN charter is one-sided, isn't it?