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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36951)	8/11/2002 1:26:55 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

" before we go in for the kill "....... Maybe you should have said " kill -ING ". heh heh heh

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (36951)	8/11/2002 5:54:03 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

>>Were you yelling about it when Clinton staged Desert Fox? That was a major bombing offensive.<< Yes. >>I'm sure that there will be a debate and a resolution before we go in for the kill. For political reasons, it's a good idea,<< Let me guess. The debate will reiterate the fact that Hussein is a scary, scary, Nastyman. The guys representing the side that allowed its Military HQ of Superpower One & Only to be successfully attacked by a group of Goofy Yayhoos For Allah-Allah-Home-Free armed only with devious Weapons of Mass Destruction of Cardboard Boxes led by the distant hombre millionaire Osama (who they once armed and twice forgot) because they couldn't coordinate the data equivalent of assembling your basic Big Mac, are gonna say: "Trust us. We have the real deal info but you can't be trusted with it." Opposition Party Inc guys will moan & groan, all the while falling all over theyselves to see who can denounce the Mad Husseinian loudest so all the world (especially the ballot wielders) will marvel at the sparkliness of their Patriotic Zoot Suits. After weeks of mumbling seriously and whispering furiously, with or without a vote of assent for anything more than a stern 'tut-tut' advising the Chief Executive Recovering Harkenholic that, before he does stuff, he better come to the Congressional washroom and say 'Mother May I?' while hopping on one leg... 100,000 mostly Fine Young Men will be off to scuttle Nastyman's butt. Without the least bit of evidence that he's doing anymore than Mugabe or Pinochet or Ferdinand Marcos or the Yellow Horde of Global Trade Opportunity to his own or near neighbors. Knowing full well they can sell it to a public aching for a visible win after a long series of defeats in NYC, DC, equity markets, and John Witchcroftian stake-burnings of the Bill of Rights that have been the hallmark of an administration that makes the Keystone Kops look eminently respectable. Then it's 'Hi-ho, off we go' on a mission of gallantry befitting the most pure and pithy of Puritan virtues, namely, showing the ignorant world what's best for itself, because it's too dumb to see what we know (but aren't telling, neener-neener!) Thereby saving the world for non-existent democracy, properly wedded moms and chemically dependent apple pies, everywhere. Oh heart be still. >>it's a good idea, but I don't think the law requires it.<< I don't even believe that law is relevant anymore, but merely a nuisance to be avoided, as this Law Dean Vice so eloquently makes clear: writ.news.findlaw.com Uh, fluidity of modern wars? Make haste! Make haste! We must usurp the Constitution to protect us from imminent demise 4 or 5 years from now! This fellow disagrees: independent.org The founders meant it, and only Traficante gets it? Strange bedfellows, indeed! thenewamerican.com And of course, some people couldn't care less for the conscienceless void of law or its expedient dismissal, preferring to view it in practical terms: ""There can be no compromise with war; it cannot be reformed or controlled; cannot be disciplined into decency or codified into common sense; for war is the slaughter of human beings, temporarily regarded as enemies, on as large a scale as possible." (1929; Jeannette Rankin) Yet the bottom line, if we are a nation of laws, championing civility and legal behavior that protects the individual from the mob and represents justice in an unjust world, is to toe the line. Otherwise, we sell out the high moral ground, justice, democracy and codified behavior, under the suspiciously thin veneer of secrecy, petroleum piracy, political gain, and the ambiguities associated with self-proclaimed benevolent monarchies in societies they've convinced to drink the Kool-aid. fff.org It doesn't matter to me how much hysterical precedence exists for the commission of a crime; it is still a crime. So pardon my naivete and Pollyannish belief that the American ideal can still be had in this modern world. Yet I recognize it as the right of any man or woman to express their willingness to settle for less, on dubious grounds borne out by the absence of facts. So long as they extend me the right, for the sake of modern expedience, to break any law I see fit to, because (Trust me!) I have information that makes it right and good and pure, so help me BigBeardedKahuna. Amen.