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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (81438)	3/12/2003 5:36:06 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Helluva statement. Thank you.

To: FaultLine who wrote (81438)	3/12/2003 5:50:29 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Sadly, your comments reflect the only possibilities you see, even though numerous ligitimate alternate views of action and outcome have been extensively discussed here. I have read just about every post on FADG and can see many possibilities. Nonetheless, If one has views against an invasion of Iraq, then one must deal with this, not slide past it: Opposing an attack on Hussein and his government is a morally good thing? Every day the regime continues Iraq people are murdered, tortured and raped. My post had nothing to do with this: The expression of views stating that those who believe in alternatives to President Bush's plans are somehow anti-American, even treasonous, will find quickly themselves excluded from this forum. I accept the need and the reality of the impending invasion and I will, in the American tradition as I believe in it, insure that views held by significant fractions of the American public, are courteously heard on the Foreign Affairs Discussion Group.

To: FaultLine who wrote (81438)	3/12/2003 9:41:45 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I believe history tells us that the US can, and has, supported dictators without the issue of whether this is "American" or not ever coming up. Jeanne Kirkpatrick comes to mind, with her, in retrospect, mistaken distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Back then she was talking about, inter alia, the Shah of Iran, and General Pinochet, who, yes, probably were better than the alternatives, but still dictators. Thus, I believe that you are making a mistake when you equate the allegation, "you are in effect supporting a dictator" with the allegation "and therefore you are not a good American."

To: FaultLine who wrote (81438)	3/12/2003 11:13:24 AM
From: Rollcast...	Respond to of 281500

I accept the need and the reality of the impending invasion and I will, in the American tradition as I believe in it, insure that views held by significant fractions of the American public, are courteously heard on the Foreign Affairs Discussion Group. Is the view that supporters of the action against Iraq are advocates of the slaughter of Iraqi children one of the insured views, or not? If a significant fraction believes that those demonstrating against the removal of Saddam are - in effect - pro Saddam... insured? Uninsured? How about the fraction who believe that equates America with racism and genocide? I must have missed your warning on that post (though I believe I saw an "attaboy" from John on it). If I called Elton John a racist baby killer with a genocidal agenda... Can I be called "anti Elton"? These warnings seem to flow only in one direction.

To: FaultLine who wrote (81438)	3/13/2003 7:24:24 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The expression of views stating that those who believe in alternatives to President Bush's plans are somehow anti-American, even treasonous, will find quickly themselves excluded from this forum. How about those who offer no alternatives to President Bush's plans related to enforcing 17 various UN BINDING resolutions against Saddam's regime?? Binding resolutions which EVERY UN member is requested, and authorized, to support (despite what the French and Russians want to say now).. And those people who say "sanctions work" despite 12 years of HARD EVIDENCE that they don't (at least not without inflicting "collective punishment" on the Iraqi people)??? I'm all for people expressing their opposition to war if they have an alternative to it THAT WORKS.. But are we supposed to stretch credulity and be required to believe that many of these opponents to war are merely those who hate the man?? All I ask is if you oppose the war, provide us all a workable alternative that doesn't involve leaving 200,000 soldiers being used as pawns in some foreign policy chess match... Because I know of very few soldiers who look forward to engaging in combat, or risking their lives, merely because the French and Russians want to preserve their Billions in oil contracts with Saddam. Hawk