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: spiral3 who wrote (81444)	3/12/2003 6:17:53 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Who speaks for the children Frank - 40% of Iraqis at this point are below fourteen yrs old. Would you like to kill them yourself or would you prefer someone else to do it on your behalf.<< This is on a par with Karen Lawrence's comments of a few days ago. Those who support President Bush's plans favor killing children, either with their own bare hands or by means of a convenient surrogate. Somehow I don't think calling someone a traitor is half as contemptible.

To: spiral3 who wrote (81444)	3/12/2003 6:23:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Who speaks for the children Frank - 40% of Iraqis at this point are below fourteen yrs old. Would you like to kill them yourself or would you prefer someone else to do it on your behalf. Would you like me to go over there, swing them by their heels, and bash their little heads against the wall? S3, this is on the same level as calling you a "Traitor" for being against the war. Why don't you knock it off?

To: spiral3 who wrote (81444)	3/12/2003 7:41:54 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

There are lots of bad countries, it?s just not practical foreign policy to go and blow them all up. Where lies the logical conclusion of this strategy? I wasn't talking about other countries. I don't make a case for invading (eg) Iran and N Korea. They are different situations. War might be a Noble Cause, but it is beyond morality. Tell that to the vets of WW2. Who speaks for the children Frank - 40% of Iraqis at this point are below fourteen yrs old. Would you like to kill them yourself or would you prefer someone else to do it on your behalf. I didn't know I had dreams of infanticide. You're my shrink, are you? The Iraq government puts young children of its political enemies in jail. I expect if you asked them if they wanted to be rescued they'd say yes. Sometimes the government just kills the whole family, neighbourhood, or village and doesn't bother to put the children in jail. I didn't know the US administration had the idea it was going to Iraq to kill children but you've got hold of some policy statement have you? It's very likely if the US invades Iraq that some children may be killed and that's tragic. I understand that - my family lost a young person not long ago and it was devastating. Hussein has devastated hundreds of thousands of families. It's extremely unlikely the US will do that and will go to great efforts to avoid it. Some of the conclusions I've come to about the Iraq matter make me want to puke but that doesn't mean they're not correct. The survey looked like a sincere attempt, but it?s largely anecdotal, not very scientific, I posted it here. The ICG says their survey is not "scientific or representative." On the other hand, it has made several such forays into Iraq and so probably has a reasonable view of what's going on at least in Baghdad and Mosul. The briefing paper should be seen as an inteligence report and as such is useful when put together with other information. The "unscientific" nature of undersized samples taken under restraints of selection can to some degree be made up for by the skill of interviewer and his clarity of observation. But degrees of uncertainty can't be established as with a Gallup poll. If the ICG investigator is at least as good as I am with an open ended questionnaire, (and he's likely to be better), then he probably got nice descriptive data. Opposing an attack on Hussein and his government is a morally good thing? Morals have little to do with it and are overshadowed by the practical reasons as explained above. You haven't made your case. Opposing an attack on Hussein is not support for him and his regime? He says he takes heart from it and I expect he does. He has no heart, remember. Given the number of people he's killed you may be right but he says he's encouraged. So if bin laden wants this war as much as Bush does, does that mean supporting Bush is actually supporting bin laden. How should I know how much either of them want it? I can think of several bad outcomes for both of them depending on how it goes.

To: spiral3 who wrote (81444)	3/12/2003 8:41:11 AM
From: aladin	Respond to of 281500

Spiral, Who speaks for the children Frank - 40% of Iraqis at this point are below fourteen yrs old. Would you like to kill them yourself or would you prefer someone else to do it on your behalf. Since I started this particular discussion, I will have a word. I find myself thinking through the moral case for war, because of the civilian deaths, not to cause them. Collateral damage will occur, in fact Saddam will probably try to increase it by putting people deliberately in harms way. At present thousands are killed per year in Iraq - who speaks for them? You on the other hand make the reasoned, logical argument that Frank is a baby killer. Shame on you. John