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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3109)	1/22/2003 11:02:42 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

What if Saddam didn't invade Kuwait, would we be going to war today? What if Saddam only used poisons against Iran because he was losing (even though the US was on his side and backing him with weaponry of all kinds) and would have lost that war if he didn't use them--is this parallel to what we did in Japan to end World War II? What if his only WMD deed was to poison the Kurds? Has the US ever cared about the Kurds before? Did the US care about the Kurds after the Gulf War? Does Turkey care about the Kurds? Iran? I submit America only cares about the Kurds today because Saddam is today on the US bogeyman list. What Saddam did to the Kurds was a violation of human rights. But what Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have done to their people has also been violations of human rights. Israel, as well. What's the point of the Bush strategy here? No find OBL, so go after the next easy target, it being Saddam? This, while conveniently ignoring North Korea? What about Indonesia? The Phillipines, Colombia, Venezuela, problems in Africa? Why not really get down and help solve the Israel-Palistinian conflict. I mean isn't there a lot more to be concerned about, instead of waging a two-bit war with Iraq--but one capable of causing, as the UN has estimated, 500,000 deaths? Is we lose 3,000 so let's take out a million really the way to go here? Whatever happened to dialogue, diplomacy, perhaps even, radical though it be, some self-reflection as to who we are as a nation and what impact our policies have on other countries, less priviled than our own. Damn it, we should all say, "I ain't gonna go to war no more!" Indeed, let's try a different way. Why make it easy for our enemies to recuit larger numbers who'll act against us? It's the bullet or a ballot or a sword or a pen. Why can't America ever elect a leader who might be willing to admit that some of our polices of prior years have been wrong, that maybe it's time to adopt some new ideas, a better way to solve problems of the world instead of relying on military might to cover up the mistakes of things we should have done but didn't do? Oh, well, enough for now. Still too many questions and not any good answers. Why? Cause we're not set up to find any good answers. Perhaps we should simply evaluate that, eh?