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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (27413)	9/14/2001 11:41:10 PM
From: Abner Hosmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

US military forces have killed millions of civilians in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Cambodia, and Iraq. Mostly from the air and not "man to man" Gee George, maybe we should have gone into Okinawa and Normandy with rubber bullets and tear gas. Maybe they'd have just turned Hitler over to us, if we'd been a bit more fair, sat down and talked to them reasonably, and tried to understand their side. But as you have always said, we are bent on complete and total world domination. Sorry you feel so bad about it sitting in your warm, comfy, American living room 56 years later now. It must be just terrible for you, knowing how much has been secured for you by the atrocities of American war criminals.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (27413)	9/15/2001 7:49:31 AM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 30051

<ot>Hi George - I ve seen your line of argument thousands of times in places like why the US, or any country, for that matter, should not intervene in atrocity elsewhere. For instance, I remember some netizens yrs ago said the US should not criticize the PRC treatment of the Tibetans etc. b/c of the US history with the native Indians. This is a highly flawed argument. To begin with, I do not condone 1) many sad chapters of human history and 2) any attempt to sugar coated them with "body counts" and "collateral damage." That said, the argument is flawed b/c it does not take into account of evolutionary nature of civilization. Sure, human beings were indeed savage beast once. Just b/c some were cannibals eons ago doesn't mean modern society doesn't have the moral compass to see it with extreme revulsion. Why, using your argument, if a parent is a robber, then logic dictates the child will inherit this robber blood! It surely sounds absurd, doesn't it? Personally, justifying war is a tenuous proposition. However, recent bombing campaigns were highly targeted [against military facilities.] Yes, innocent people suffered the most. Some were honest mistakes. Some could even be acts of savagery by rogue soldiers. Surely, many of us still remember MyLai! However, when Saddam was deploying his human shield, his cowardice was quite apparent. Therefore, no matter how you twist instances to justify your argument, it is flawed. It is flawed b/c you have failed to account for 1) historicity and more important 2) intention. Just my ignorant way of seeing the world Incidentally, thus far, I have not seen there is an official stmt about the US going after Afghanstan. To me, it seems that the real solution is to destroy the terrorist network. So, maybe sometimes people are too eager to make assumptions to justify themselves. best, Bosco