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 (14438)	3/1/2003 7:46:13 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

The same sorts of things could be said about the people in any war- the differences have to do with the wars. People who protested our involvement in Vietnam looked pretty prescient by the end of that fiasco- but there were the inevitable WWII comparisons in that war as well- they just weren't apt. As you might have noticed, Iraq isn't actually at war with anyone, so not going to war, with a country not AT war, is a bit different than going to war with Germany as it was swallowing up Europe. I realize you don't seem to be able to get your mind around this, but Iraq was not even able to conquer Iran, when it was actually at war, with our backing. I find it hard to find Iraq not at war with anyone, and as weak and pitiful as it is, on a par with Germany. You may see the parallels, but no one I respect sees them. So we'll just have to disagree.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (14438)	3/1/2003 8:22:43 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

And what of this irony. So much has been made about how we ignored Hitler, he got his stage and his people behind him, beefed up his war technology and then went on a takeover rampage. Now, we're being told that Iraq didn't comply with UN resolutions. So we'll go to war. However, Israel in its repression of the Palestinians didn't comply with UN resolutions and probably the greatest reason why there's a hotbed of dispute in the entire Middle East is Israel's refusal to stop repressing the Palestianians. Shouldn't, for perhaps the same reasons which Bush is professing, aim at Israel's UN violations first since it is here that the flames are fanned? Once this is accomplished then perhaps dealing with some of the rogue-natured Arab states? Am I missing something? Isn't what I wrote above a logical progress?