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: E. T. who wrote (3828)	2/13/2003 5:41:51 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

So you did not really "hear" but are "guessing"? >>>>>>Hey, I hear he's planting bombs around his oil facilities... >>>Who did you "hear" that from?" Nobody, it's his m.o. Re the example of the rapist - I doubt if you understood what I meant, because here you are talking about how sure you are he did commit those atrocities. Ahh, in this case, I've seen graphic footage of streets and streets of dead,mostly women and children and men and it was Saddam H. who gassed them ... which is of course completely beside the point I was trying to make. The point is: (1) I would try to stop a lynching however sure I am that the guy is indeed a rapist because I believe in going through the legal system of prosecuting criminals i.e.: In Saddam's case, this is the blessing of the UN Security Council for the invasion, not the US going off like a vigilante. If Saddam is captured alive, then international courts, and not rotting in Guantanamo with no lawyer, no criminal court. (2) I would try to stop the mob from killing the suspect's family and anyone else around him in the process because they are innocent of his crimes and it would be an atrocity to hurt them. i.e. In Saddam's case, killing thousands of Iraqis in the invasion to get Saddam. About 150,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, while 300,000 were wounded (think arms and legs flying hither and yon). cnn.com Just how important is "getting the bad guy"? So important that you would be OK with killing off so many people? Besides, is there really no other way of getting the rapist than killing off his family and everyone else within a kilometer radius of his house? The world's a better place with Saddam H. off the scene. Agreed. The question is the strategy to follow, of course. I happen to believe bringing the world to the brink of nuclear (or chemical or biological) war is not a desirable way of going after a bad guy. And I sure as hell don't see how unilaterally invading Iraq, thereby not only further aggravating Muslims but quite successfully alienating allies is going to help the war on terrorism. Tell me, you've never seen the footage of those gased Iraqi people? I have, and they were horrible. And the footage in question has nothing to do with the decision as to which strategy should be followed in Iraq in relation to the war against terrorism. At least, I ASSUME Iraq is being attacked in relation to the war on terrorism. You are going the sentimental way that your president and your media are taking you. Oh poor gassed people. Oh evil, evil Saddam! Forget that we supported Saddam against Iran and forget that in all likelihood, the chemicals he gassed people with came from us, just feel for the poor dead people and help us kill more Iraqi people in thousands. Really... The question you should be answering is "What is the best strategy for the long term benefits of my country and countrymen, especially with regards to my ongoing war on terrorism?" And when you do, you will see that its answer has nothing to do with the poor gassed people who were buried a decade ago. I would actually be interested to hear your answer to the above question.