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 (58671)	11/25/2002 12:27:08 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There's a similar debate going on in Salon, where Joe Conanson accuses David Horowitz of calling all those who oppose the Iraq war 'traitors', and Horowitz defending himself, pretty well and soberly for Horowitz. Horowitz points out that Conanson by this reaction, is moving to shut down a discussion the left very much needs to have with itself Conason's column is an attempt to create an atmosphere in which the left cannot discuss what is now its most serious problem, namely, the presence of terrorist sympathizers in its own ranks. To do so would be McCarthyism, right-wing chauvinism, witch-hunting. salon.com

To: aladin who wrote (58671)	11/25/2002 11:42:01 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think any of our regular posting community who support intervention would call a disenting opinion on Iraq a traitor Right. Our "regular posting community" prefers (very slightly more) subtle codewords, like Chamberlain and other random Godwin's Law demonstrations. Rush just happened to be the first of many mentioned in spinsanity.org , the scary thing is that he's apparently not that much of an outlier among the bloviating pundits so popular around here. You want to deny a WH hand in the Cleland thing, go ahead. I'm sure Rove and Co. never gave a thought to the war card. The "regular posting community" will no doubt get the war they so fervently desire soon enough. And who knows, it may work out that after Perle gets his way and blows the lid off in the mideast, things will magically reassemble themselves into something better. Not our problem if they don't, going by the Afghan analogy anyway: We should not be "Rebuilding" Afghanistan, it was already rubble when we bombed it. They should be happy as hell that they are finally free to do it themselves. Message 18264817 I guess the Afghans should be "happy as hell" about the million-odd people killed in the US-USSR proxy war there too. Maybe Iraq will get off lighter, but then maybe they'll be less "happy as hell", who can say? As for your "we ask the straight-out questions here" Somalia/Kosovo line, those operations would hardly seem to be attractive models. Somalia was a disaster, and Kosovo was a very near thing.