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: one_less who wrote (58433)	9/17/2002 4:28:11 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 82486

Unlike the cowards that attacked us, we don't "target" innocents.

To: one_less who wrote (58433)	9/17/2002 6:10:44 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Bring forth concrete evidence and make sure you target the specific enemy this time instead of innocent villagers to the north and south of Bagdad. How do we do that? Saddam is pretty well protected, and the terrorists, if they are there, are probably pretty well dispersed around the country. Also, IMO, Iraq poses much less threat to our country than many other enemies much closer to home. The Mexican and Columbia drug cartels kill many, many more Americans than I think Iraq ever will. Heck, the alcohol industry produced products that were response for 17,000 deaths just by automobile, countless more deaths by accident and assault, and enormous amounts of personal grief. A large number of the domestic violence incidents which the police respond to are fuled by alcohol. If we really want to protect American lives, there are places much closer to home to start. (And let's not even get started on the tobacco industry.) Fact is, Iraq is a handy enemy because it has a bad history with Kuwait and poisoning the Kurds, it is of the same broad ethnic/religious group as the 9/11 hijackers, Saddam has thumbed his nose at us and the UN, which we resent, and there is almost nobody in the country interested in standing up for Iraq, so there is little political cost if we do attack, since once the decision is made virtually all major politicians, pundits, etc. will fall nicely into line. All of which are terrible reasons for starting a war. I have a bit of a personal interest here, since my son, as I have said before, is in the military. So I look at this and ask myself, is this a fight which I am willing to send my son to fight and die for? And in terms of invading Iraq, the answer for me, so far at least, is no way. Nor do I see many of the drum beaters here on SI, or in my local community, volunteering for front line duty. Do you?