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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9110)	2/16/2003 11:54:19 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Lazarus, even if every member of the U.N. agreed to a declaration of war with Iraq, peace-niks would still cry foul because Iraq voted against the resolution.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9110)	2/17/2003 1:32:28 AM
From: BubbaFred	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

At least you are realistic about "war crimes" and who has the opportunity to be the judge and determine it. However one should remember that such crime against humanity could become exemplary in the future and viewed as an o.k. and righteous thing to do, as long as one can do it for the cause of freedom and democry or other tenets. The purpose of the United Nations is based on avoiding this type of unilateral action because the world consists of interdependant nations. This is what the anti-war people want to prevent and to show by example that crime against humanity is not the right thing to do. The present US administration has a self serving agenda that has good intention, but have encoutered oppositions from those who cannot be bought out by US dollars. No matter how well meaning the agenda is for the American people and economy, we also need to determine the impact on other nations and why they are opposed. The warmongers have been twisting the hope and aspiration of the anti-war people. The warmongers want to equate it to a Saddam support. On the contrary, as much as we despise Saddam, the anti-war people have deeper understanding and perception on the complexities of the situation, the ramifications of unilateral war action, the short and long term impacts of such action, and we don't make oversimplifications nor do we assume everything will be hunky dories afterwards which they never turn out that way. There are also other ways to remove and eliminate Saddam without performing armageddon on the civilians. We strive for what is good for the future generations, not instant gratifications or quick profit schemes.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9110)	2/17/2003 9:15:49 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 25898

Hitler was not contained when Chamberlain was "appeasing" him. Saddam is not invading anyone. He has no credible link to 9/11. The only thing he has done it not cooperated as fully as we would like with 1441. That is not, imo, enough moral justification for war against the Iraqi people. It isn't Saddam who will be sent out in khaki to fight us, it is ordinary Iraqi soldiers who would probably prefer not to fight. Just like the ones we buried alive in trenches in the last war. There ARE atrocities in every war, and we've committed them in every war. That isn't so bad if the war is just, and you have exhausted avenues for peace, and there is a real reason for war. There appears to be no satisfactory reason for this war. What exactly are our "own interests" in this matter? Not fighting terrorism. That dog won't hunt. And Iraq doesn't pose a danger to anyone at the moment. So what exactly is "our interest"? At this moment I would think it really ought to be securing our country against the real perpetrators of 9/11, who aren't in Iraq.