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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (36265)	8/7/2002 11:06:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

bleeding heart liberals, Now, now, John. I have thought it! I have thought it! But I have never used it!!! ";-)"

To: JohnM who wrote (36265)	8/7/2002 11:26:54 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Please say, as specifically as you can, just where you think I am being intellectually dishonest. In the zones in which I live, that is a very serious charge. Here is one example: Message 17844556 Much too different circumstances. Required different calculations at the outset. The WWII calculations were, rightfully, all defensive; The reason that "different calculations were required is due to the fact that Britain, France, and the US ignored the obvious, that Hitler and Imperial Japan were BOTH on a path to a war of expansion. Not just economic competition, but physical empire building in the classic imperial sense. We appeased, or ignored them, hoping to put off the inevitable, while praying for a miracle that might forestall another major conflict. Saddam Hussein, if given the opportunity and the means, is CLEARLY to follow the same agenda, namely building an Arab "empire". He attempted his first act of expansion with a repeat of the "Rhineland/Sudentenland" scenario in his invasion of Kuwait, claiming it was historically Iraq's 19th province (this despite the fact that Iraq is an artificial state to begin with). But now the US has been attacked by a terrorist network that has been financed, trained, and politically by a host of governments who are content to use them as a "fifth column" to advance their own goals of destabilizing the West. And we have Saddam Hussein, who has ALREADY DEFIED the terms of Gulf War armistice agreement, tried to assasinate one of our former presidents, lent financial support to Hamas (which just killed 5 US citizens at Hebrew University) newsday.com He has defied all the UN terms of armistice: usinfo.state.gov Thus, once again, trying to claim that the US doesn't have the authority to seek the ouster of Saddam is not substantiated by the evidence. We have the moral and legal authority and HAVE HAD IT for some time. The question is whether we're ever going to exercise it, or merely permit creatures like Saddam to continue setting precedents for thumbing their noses at the rest of the world. As for neocons, You stated that you perceive the "neocons" have a blood lust for war. That, imo, is EXTREMELY deprecatory... In fact I would opine that it's downright libelous. Message 17846122 I certainly don't classify myself as a "neocon".. I view myself as a pragmatist who calls a spade a spade when I see it. I don't believe in putting my head in the sand and ignoring the obvious merely because it's inconvenient, or that it may lead to unintended consequences. Life is full of unintended consequeces, but leaving Saddam in place is a "sin of ommission" that we will likely pay dearly for in the future should he obtain WMDs. Hawk