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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (12630)	2/7/2003 8:42:52 AM
From: JHP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

******* yes they are that stupid!!!!!! Are They That Stupid? By: Oriyah Shavit Date Published: 02-04-03 736 words As we see the mass rallies that radical leftists in the US and Europe organized in order to protest against a war in Iraq; upon hearing of the French and German’s pact to prevent the ousting of Saddam; upon reading the zealous articles addressing the supposed hypocrisy of the war planners—one is provoked into asking all those responsible for these moralistic mutterings, threatening to prevent the war with their own bodies, one simple question: Are you really that hypocritical and stupid, or are you just pretending? Suppose all the claims of those opposing the war are correct. Suppose that the rael reason for the campaign in Iraq is to strengthen the US’s weapons and oil industry. Suppose the considerations of revenge have clouded George Bush Junior’s judgment. Suppose that there is no proof from intelligence agencies that the Iraqi regime is hiding weapons of mass destruction. Suppose that the demonstrations of support on the streets of Baghdad are, indeed, a spontaneous show of support for a beloved and admired president. What are those opposing the war actually suggesting? They suggest that tens of thousands of American and British soldiers go home with their tails tucked in between their legs and enable one of the most cruel tyrants in modern history to throw a party; they are suggesting that a ruler who did not hesitate to poison his own citizens with chemical weapons be given the authorization to develop nuclear weapons in the next 20 years of his life; they suggest letting the Iraqi military strengthen and spread terror to neighboring countries. They suggest sending a message to all undesirable regimes whoever they may be, that it is possible to overpower liberal democracies through their own public opinion. All these threats are not theoretical. Historical decisions are decisions made among options. At the current stage in the conflict between the US and Iraq, someone has to win and someone has to lose. The US declared its determination to bring about the downfall of the Iraqi regime. Saddam refuses to leave on his own. A military front is necessary to bring about his ousting. Whoever calls for the prevention of the war in Iraq, is calling to crown Saddam victorious. The protest against the war in Iraq is not moral. The Iraqi regime’s crimes are severe enough to justify its demise even without the Security Council’s approval. Saddam Hussein must be brought down simply because that is what the rules of justice demand. It isn’t clear what the humanitarian leftists are protecting when they protect Saddam in the name of vague principles. The right to put journalists to death? The right to sever the ears of those in opposition to the regime? The right to carry out show trials that mock the freedoms of the individual? The protest against a war in Iraq is also illogical. The experiences of the last decade taught us that the West is capable of bringing tyrannical regimes down with relative ease, if they so desire. It happened in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan by using military force. It happened in Indonesia and Nigeria with diplomatic force. Hundreds of millions of women, intellectuals and minorities and other victims of these oppressive regimes owe their lives in a freer world to the US and its partners. This freedom is not a controversial issue. It is very real when it is won, and very missed when it is denied. All this doesn’t mean, of course, that one must celebrate a war in Iraq. War is always a terrible thing. It also doesn’t mean that one must develop the expectation that this war will transform the world into a better place where justice reigns. Saddam’s ousting might invoke chaos in the Middle East that will require years to solve. But in this situation, the price of halting the war will be heavier than the price of the war itself. The more that Western public opinion is unified in regards to the necessity of ousting Saddam, so the war will be shorter, more efficient and more merciful. It is strange that the radical left doesn’t understand this. The people desiring Saddam’s survival are the very same people that object to Israel’s actions in the territories. Sometimes it seems that more than the concern for human rights, it is important for them to wallow in their annoying illogical self-righteousness.