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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/16/2001 9:27:17 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In the interest of historical accuracy only: The Nazi's best electoral showing was still only 37%. After they seized power, elections were abolished. I do not believe that anyone can provide a public opinion poll from the 1930's showing that the Japanese people wanted war. Multi-party democracy died before the onset of war. Although support for the Emperor was nearly universal, the most Emperors had little, if any, practical political power for hundreds of years.

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/16/2001 11:15:33 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (9) \| Respond to of 82486

You are a traitor. 5000 innocents lost their lives September 11, 2001, and you have the nerve to blame us???? You deserve to live in Afghanistan. The likes of you have attempted to sabotage all our country holds dear.

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/16/2001 11:34:52 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You are aware, I hope, that the Nazis ..... Read ConstantReader's reply. I was going to say something along the same line, but she said it better. Yes, Hitler's party won an leadership of a parliamentary coalition- -and then seized total power. But I could come with literally hundreds of examples of kings, emperors, and dictators who led their countries into war. Should democracies ignore acts of war by them because they are not democracies? You have no case here. The Mexican war is such a sad blemish on our country I don't really even want to go into that. You are aware that Santa Ana declared war on the US, not the other way around, right? Should we also ignore declarations of war against us? It is a pummeling of a little stone age country, because some bad men took control of it. Some men knowingly aided and sheltered by that "little stone age country" killed 6,000 American civilians. That's more than twice then number of fatalities at Pearl Harbor. Do we ignore this too? And why did these men take control? Well.... Yeah, I know. It's all our fault. We made them do it.

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/17/2001 12:30:10 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

. It really isn't even a war. It is a pummeling of a little stone age country, because some bad men took control of it. And why did these men take control?.... I think I can still be against terrorism and say that. I believe we have taken the wrong path. Its possible that the US action can remove some of the bad men that took control and in the long run help Afghanistan as well as deter other states from supporting and sheltering terrorists. What path would you have us take? Tim

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/17/2001 10:24:02 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is a pummeling of a little stone age country, because some bad men took control of it. X, I don't think this is the case. I think we're pummeling that little stone age country to allow those assassins you favor to do their business more safely and effectively. That doesn't make the country any less pummeled, I'll grant you... We talked a lot about Afghanistan on this thread long before September 11 and about how horrible the Taliban was for the people, particularly the women. I'm sure you recall the discussion. Brees kept telling us about how the treatment of women was meant to protect them and how much the women appreciated it. Yes, I thought you'd remember that. I recall saying at the time that, sadly, we had no business going in there and doing something about it. Well, we have an excuse now. How convenient it would be if we could take out Osama and company and do a little nation building in the process. We have no way of knowing what the Afghani people want. They're too weak and disorganized and probably ignorant of most of what's going on to tell us. After all they've been through, though, I'd bet they would be willing to risk a few civilian casualties in the bombing to be able to send their girls to school, for their women to get medical treatment, to have more freedom, and to save their children from starving. I think it would be pretty arrogant of us to intrude on their country out of the blue to accomplish those things. But if they're a byproduct of reducing international terrorism, I would consider that a big net gain. Karen

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/17/2001 5:01:37 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Why don't you skedaddle over to Kabul and explain to the nice Taliban men why they are so misguided..... JLA

To: epicure who wrote (33411)	10/17/2001 10:51:33 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

'Why do they hate us'? Tony Blankley French filmmaker and Holocaust scholar Claude Lanzmann has always been repulsed by efforts to explain Hitler and the Holocaust: "It is enough to formulate the question in simplistic terms — Why have the Jews been killed? — for the question to reveal right away its obscenity. There is an absolute obscenity in the very project of understanding." We see a similar judgment being asserted repeatedly today in America. If anyone tries to understand why Osama bin Laden and his gang attacked us, the questioner is immediately condemned as sympathetic to the terrorists. These are both variants on the philosophical proposition: To understand all, is to forgive all. It is the serious version of the George Will joke that two liberals see a man lying in the gutter terribly beaten, and angrily say: "We have to find the man who did this — he desperately needs help." And because some of the commentators trying to explain why we were attacked are dedicated, left-wing America-haters, explanations are suspect as consciously chosen fig leaves for revisionism. At a certain level, there is truth in the observation that to explain evil is the first step to excusing it; indeed, that all explanation is, de facto, exoneration. It is a dangerous step down a path to moral relativism, situational ethics and the enfeebling of the will to fight the evil. Particularly for civilized, educated people, the white-hot passion to fight is easily reduced to pale embers by theorizing, temporizing and finally rationalizing the "easy" way out of a fight. Just as a horse is more surely kept on his path by blinders that exclude from his vision potentially distracting sights, so the argument goes, we should not be distracted from our duty by the contemplation of the enemy's psychological or material needs and motivations. This is the classic mystic's argument that blindness is insight. But there is another Holocaust scholar, Yehuda Bauer, who argues that "The Holocaust can be precedent, or it can become a warning." So too, we can try to learn from this horror how to minimize bin Laden's appeal. Or we can be oblivious to the consequences of our conduct and just try to kill not only the current crop of terrorists faster than they can kill us, but the doubtlessly long line of enraged masses who may come into being in the future. This is not an argument for failing to seek decisive victory now. We surely will have to fight a war of extermination against bin Laden's gang and such other sources of current danger as Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. But we should be simultaneously trying to understand what words and actions unnecessarily may rally even more people to the anti-American terrorist banner. For example, our foolish failure to reduce our reliance on Middle East oil has forced us to ally with "moderate" regimes who are increasingly on the wrong side of their people and the losing side of history. The quicker we can reduce that reliance, the greater freedom of action we will have. The failure to consider the effect of our words and actions on potential enemies can have huge consequences. In World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt called for unconditional surrender from the Germans in order to rally American public opinion. He was vehemently opposed in that decision by Gen. Eisenhower; Chief of the Army, Gen. George C. Marshall; head of OSS, Bill Donovan; famed military strategist Basil Liddell Hart and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, among many others. They all understood that that demand foreclosed the good chance that German Adm. Wilhelm Canaris — the head of German intelligence who was actively helping the allies — would be able to rally key generals to complete his coup against Hitler before the D-Day invasion. By maximizing the fighting spirit of the enemy, Roosevelt's call for unconditional surrender may have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and made possible the final Holocaust of 1944-1945. Churchill, Eisenhower and Marshall certainly wanted complete victory also, but they understood that, depending on the president's words, the enemy could be either dispirited or enraged; they preferred the former. It is grotesque that those both in and out of government today who seek to understand the motivations of the world in which we must live are condemned as fools or disloyal citizens. The answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?" is worth understanding, if not for the purpose of mitigating the hatred, at least for the purpose of preparing to deal with it. Tony Blankley is a columnist for The Washington Times. His column appears on Wednesdays. washtimes.com