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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3245)	2/4/2003 8:14:50 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Hawk - Put aside Saddam for a minute. What I was trying to say in the previous post was far more general than Bush against Saddam. Surely you jest?? (if I may call you shirley, that is.. :0) Nope. But call me Shirley, if you like, although me wearing little white girly skirts, cut (god forbid!) & curl my hair, tie it in ribbons, and sing "Tomorrow" is a bit out of the question! :-) Re: loss of the legitimacy of that authority, increased hostility towards Americans, etc. When the US overthrows Saddam and the FULL STORY of what he's put that country through for the past 30 years is revealed, do you think there will be anything but vindication for the US taking such a major stand against him?? It is not who the foe is and how "bad" he is, but how America has been handling this affair that has and will, in my humble opinion, turn world opinion against it. What I am referring to, obviously, is the unilateralism, "They are evil, we are good" sort of dummy rhetoric, "You are with us or against us" sort of bullying, disrespect for international treaties, "Might makes right" thinking, etc. Or did you ever think that it is because I love Saddam that I oppose the current Bush administration in their stumbling across the international political scene? But the "world" become hostile over Saddam?? Only the most warped of personalities would get hostile over Saddam being overthrown. As I said, this is not over Saddam but over the US seeing itself "above the law", attacking whom it wants without a clear and present danger nor provocation, bullying allies into support, etc. Please try to understand that it is not because everybody loves Saddam's thick mustache and manly ways that there is an 82% opposition to war on Iraq without backing from the UN in England, higher in continental Europe. Saddam is the bully here Saddam is one bully. A bully who is largely subdued in the past 10 years, weakened and rather docile, presenting no danger and definitely no justification for an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. There is, however, room for other bullies on this planet. And not all bullies employ the same methods. I am very sorry to say this but there is the perception, growing stronger by day, that Bush is emerging as another, far more stronger and more dangerous than Saddam. Take a look at the Time poll below: Who is the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? time.com The US leads with 84.4% of total votes. What does that tell you, Hawk? I hardly see it being a case where someone who beats the crap out of the bully can be properly called one themselves. It depends. If, ten years after the last time he's been a bully, you decide to all of a sudden, and without provocation or danger to yourself, try to "beat the crap out of him", there is a strong chance that you would be seen as the next bully. Especially if the police, who has the legitimate use of force, does not agree with you that he should be beaten up, and you even bully the police. ESPECIALLY, if you are obviously going after the gold in the guy's pockets. Did you ever read what Orwell said about totalitarian regimes (which at the time were into goose-stepping)??? And if I'm not mistaken, I believe the republican guard of Iraq do the goose step as well, or used to.. So what, really? I know other countries whose armies have funny ways of walking. Never thought of it as a reason to invade them.