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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (75147)	4/5/2006 10:34:22 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

Bush has failed as commander in chief. He has made every Islamic country he's touched more dangerous. He has accelerated Iran's drive toward membership in the nuclear club. He praises Pakistan but allows them to have nukes even though they are protecting the Taliban and Osama Bin Lauden. He claimed Saddam was the one we should be scared of, but now we have many more dangers to be scared of, including Bush's own dishonesty, lawless abuse of power and incompetency.

To: lorne who wrote (75147)	4/6/2006 3:32:59 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

>>Allen I have already stated that diplomatic efforts are now underway and have been for a couple of years now and that would include sanctions. I thought it was understood that any military action would be a last ditch action when all else failed. Do not understand why you keep saying I have only 2 options? Allen you have already stated Iran should be prevented from acquiring nukes but you did not offer any suggestions of your own about just how this should be accomplished.<< Lorne - I have been posting about the inadvisability of maintaining and promoting the pre-emptive defense doctrine. I am talking about the idea that sending our army to attack a country that MAY pose a threat to us is OK. All my recent posts are related to that. When you responded to a post where I was making arguments against pre-emptive wars, asking me "So should the USA and the free world let a fanatic islam controlled country get nukes?", it seemed to me that you were defending the pre-emptive war concept. If you weren't, fine, but I think you can see how I might have thought so. BTW, in fact I have, in recent posts, pointed out some of the many options to military action that do exist. >>I beleive there was an agreement or treaty of some sort signed during the Clinton adminstration where North Korea agreed not to devolope nukes in return for some sort of aid from the USA. This attempt at a diplomatic solution failed and IMO North Korea is much less a danger than radical islam with nukes.<< It's North Korea that has recently threatened to strike us first. Their Foreign Minister pointed out that the U.S. is not the only country that is allowed to use the pre-emptive defense doctrine. - Allen