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 (60881)	12/10/2002 12:06:01 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ah, we are changing the topic again. That tactic. We won't talk about the missing data points in the left bashing. Rather we will talk about Amnesty International. OK. Last time I checked Amnesty International did not "defend one of the worst regimes on Earth from American aggression". They rather questioned the Bush administration's motives. One might then argue, as I gather you do, that whatever the Bushies motives, ridding the world of an oppressive tyrant, one that abuses his citizens as badly as Saddam, is a good thing. The problem with that argument is that (a) we know the Bush folk do not care a whit about human rights in Iraq--that has zero to do with their agenda--else they would be addressing human rights issues around the globe; (b) because they do not the successor regime is unlikely to so care--evidence for that is the number of regimes which abuse human rights which the US has supported in the past and still supports. So, I would gather, the Amnesty International folk concluded a US invasion of Iraq was not likely to improve the human rights issue in Iraq. Thus, they could not support it. As for whether it's all about oil, I don't genuinely know. I found Ken Pollack's argument that it's all about oil fairly persuasive. His work has yet to strike me as unduly conspiratorially oriented.