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: aladin who wrote (39985)	8/26/2002 1:37:57 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice post, John, and thanks. I don't, however, appreciate the cheap shot about your 16 year old. All of us should just drop that stuff. On the points you make about human rights abuse or ethnic cleansing issues in Iraq, etc. the Bush folk don't have credibility there. This is not an administration that came to office carrying the banner of protecting human rights abuse or putting a stop to ethnic cleansing. If anything, they backed away from the rather meager commitments of the previous administration to address these. So, unfortunately, I think when the Bush folk advance those reasons, they are not serious. As for terrorism being a human rights abuse, that's a good argument. But what to do about terrorism and what is actually terrorism are a part of the present national debate. I've tried to outline my own views on what terrorism I think the US should address as a military issue, that is the 9-11 related stuff. But the definition of civilian attack is a tough one for terrorism. It makes sense but it brings into the definitional fold, the US attacks I mentioned, Sherman's march through the South during the American Civil War, the use of terror by the Israelis in the late 40s, etc. So we need a better definition. Sorry, but I don't have one. Thanks again for the post but with the caveat of dropping the put downs.