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: runes who wrote (68576)	3/12/2003 2:42:29 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Clearly there is no one on this thread who supports genocide. Just as clearly, there is no one on this thread who welcomes war. However, since genocide has been a policy of several states, it will continue, IMO, until the costs of conducting genocide are clearly mandated. If leaders know they will be held responsible for their crimes against humanity, they will be more inhibited before committing them. In the same way, if we disguise or deny the existence of genocide and other crimes against humanity, it will give a green light to subsequent crimes. The defense of the murderer in Texas who dragged a black man to his death by tieing him to his car, was that this was done as late as the '30's. He was shocked that a mainly white jury convicted him. The world must give the same message, be it in Iraq or Israel. To say that it is done in Israel, which I disagree, is irrelevant to whether that permits it in other places. Put Sharon on trial. I would, based on what I know, convict him for allowing the Christians to slaughter the Muslims. I certainly would also convict the Phalangists. However, Saddam is an even clearer offender-- by miles. The next question is what is the appropriate venue for preventing further crimes against humanity. I don't like the idea of one nation becoming the police of the world. However, Runes, your facts on the Balkans are simply incorrect. Russia, being a Slavic country sided with Milosovic virtually the entire way. NATO intervened, and they required US leadership in order to stop the genocide of Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. The UN had a foggy mission and was exploited by Milosovic and used as shields to prevent bombing of Serbs. The Germans were very reluctant to do anything, and the french, under Miterrand, did not want to become involved. The UN failed. The clearest vision on this right-and-wrong issue was certainly not Clinton. It was Tony Blair and Christine Amenpour (sp). Given the apparent lack of effort by the UN to go after Saddam, we are in a quandry. Bush, as I and almost everyone I know, wanted the inspections to be enforced. The inspectors would not be in Iraq without Bush's brinkmanship. We apparently differ on whether Iraq is complying with 1441. I hope they finally do, but given the prior roles of the french, German's, and Russians, and given their self-interests, I am quite skeptical that noncompliance would be recognized by the entire Security Council. fred fred