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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JSwanson who wrote (68370)	3/8/2003 12:39:39 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

J, when the push comes to shove, of course I will prefer to see dead Iraqis than dead Americans. But that doesn't mean I have to endorse a government that forces me to make that choice. The US track record is far from the benign image you present. The best I can say is that in general the dictators we support (and supported in the past) are better than the dictators that communist states supported. That is we can claim some measure of morality based on relative values but not even close to anything decent based on absolute values. It is also true that we have never hesitated to remove democratically elected governments or more often destroy any chance of our oppositions coming to power through democratic means. So while the propaganda machine has brain washed the public into thinking we do no wrong (or at least our wrongs are justifiable), the rest of the world forgot to tune into US media and is of a different opinion. > Bush, or any other President for that matter, didn't swear an oath to the world. It is sworn to the Citizens of the US to protect the US Citizens and uphold the US Constitution. Absolutely true. And I agree with your sentiment here. So in the end, if it comes to "it is us or them" I will not fault the government for protecting us no matter what. But there is a huge disconnect between this view and one that says we can do whatever we want if it is to our benefit at the moment. The parallels are clear in our own everyday life. As a person, whatever we do, we do it for our own selfish interests and that of our family. Under extreme cases, we are excused of any crime including murder if we can show that the danger to us justified it. We do not, as people, just breach contracts because we don't like them anymore. Nor do we go and shoot our personal enemies because they may buy a gun tomorrow and come after us. Nor do we beat up our co-workers in the parking lot because they did not support our position in the meeting. And yet on an international scale, these are exactly what US has done. There is a reason why a person would not behave that way and it is not just because we are good people or we are afraid of police. It is because we have come to understand that progress cannot be made if everyone can go back on their contracts or can just force his way. This was not always so, but over centuries we have all come to understand that. The same goes for our government and for every other government in the world. Our greatest selfish interests are served by honoring rights of others and establishing international laws that will apply equally to everyone including ourselves. The world cannot remain a free for all jungle. ST

To: JSwanson who wrote (68370)	3/8/2003 5:57:45 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

>> Why didn't they just say enough is enough we don't think Saddam is a threat anymore? Because the US has repeatedly stated that it will not agree to lifting sanctions regardless of whether weapons are eliminated or not. The purpose of res 1441 was to prohibit the US from claiming that it has UN authorization to attack Iraq. The US agreed to that because it was sure it could present convincing evidence to get a second specific resolution authorizing attack. The "second resolution" would rely on the results of inspections to look into US claims about "overwhelming" weapons evidence. So a mechanism was put into place, specified to the minutest detail by the US, where claims by the US and UK regarding weapons could be proved true or false. This would be done by repeated, aggressive and intrusive inspection, with the active support of US and UK spy agencies. You could see for yourself whether or not this evidence convinced anyone. So far Bulgaria is firmly on board.