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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (1569)	10/31/2002 2:47:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 6901

It is the classic left/right breaking point. Indeed.. I have a associate who is very much into Zen Buddhism (and all that entails). His politics are pretty left wing and anti-corporate... But even with all the "touchy-feely" sentiments he tries to present related to his philosophy of dealing with people, he can quickly revert back to the "brute force" approach.. We were discussing "bullies" the other day and he stated that there is nothing more he hates than a bully and how many times he had confronted them and threatened to "rip out their liver".. (which, being a black-belt, I have no doubt he could do if so inclined). Well, of course, this naturally evoked an analogy to Saddam, who I believe is an international bully who must be confronted once and for all... Well, my friend, being against going to war, naturally deflected the argument to "it's about oil" and we should find alternative fuels and leave the area alone, rather than spending all of that money on an invasion... Well, my response was "how does that change Saddam's nature as a bully?? Is there some obligation on the part of the US to confront him? Wouldn't he be even more of a bully were the US to disengage from the region and stop "containing" him?? And then I asked.. "Were we warranted to go to way when Saddam invaded Kuwait?".. To which he responded, "that was a different situation".. To which I said.. "Why??" It was still about oil, wasn't it?? We never were able to force Saddam to abide by the terms of the cease-fire agreement, so effectively the war has continued today... Well... about this time, he mumbled that it was still about oil and that he didn't think we had any business invading Iraq... and I just kind of let the argument die out of preserving our friendship... But it's indicative of what I perceive are the arguments on the left... They rely upon the "oil card" as an argument which does nothing to solve the problem. It's tantamount to capitulation to a despot because for some reason it's not worth going to war now, but it was in 1991. And it's interesting to note that liberals such as Christopher Hitchens have taken up the cause of getting rid of Saddam, while his counter-parts have taken on a more isolationist policy, normally associated with conservatives. They seem content to permit despots to continue to hold the global economy hostage, and to oppress, or aggress against millions of people.. It's a very strange dichotomy that I can only assert is more "anti-anything Bush related" than actual principled analysis of how to resolve a major issue... They oppose dealing with Saddam because Bush is advancing the concept. But were it Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, they likely would be just as willing to back going to war... Such is the infection of partisan politics into what should be principled policy decisions in dealing with tyrants. And this goes for dealing with N. Korea as well.. You don't fight "brinkmanship" by backing down.. You have to be willing to stand and fight for your ideals, or they really mean nothing... Hawk