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: Fred Levine who wrote (68579)	3/12/2003 2:57:27 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

God I hate being in the position to defend people I don't like, but your facts are wrong about Saddam; He did not commit genocide. He ruthlessly squashed an uprising. And was even more ruthless towards the Shia who are both the majority of the population and unlike the Kurds are Arabs. That he is keeping Iraqi population under his boots is a given. But that is not the same as genocide. Milosovic on the other hand was conducting genocide. Here is Merriam-Webster on the topic: One entry found for genocide. Main Entry: geno·cide Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId Function: noun Date: 1944 : the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group If you really want to improve things, then push Bush to give UN more authority and sign the world court treaty rather than undermine it. Sun Tzu edit: I am in favor of anti-genocide laws, but you'd never get it passed. For obvious reasons China (and perhaps Russia) will never allow it.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (68579)	3/12/2003 3:27:06 PM
From: runes	Respond to of 70976

<<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>> ...No argument here. IN fact I am very happy that Milosivic is now on trial in the UN for war crimes including, I believe, genocide (ethnic cleansing). This is actual a very historic trial as it is the first time that a former head of state has ever been prosecuted. And it should start to set the precedent for future prosecutions. <<Runes, your facts on the Balkans are simply incorrect>> ...No, but I think I worded it poorly. The Russians were the reason why the UN was not able to do more than a "negotiation" that ended up being a sham. And I am glad the the US/NATO stepped up to the plate to stop the ethnic cleansing that was in progress. <<We apparently differ on whether Iraq is complying with 1441>> ...No, the dispute is over which is the best means to enforce the resolution(s). Group A says let the inspections work. Group B (my choice) is to give Iraq unambigous criteria to meet or refuse at the peril of war. Group C (you) just want to take the bugger out. ...First point of contention - you seem to want to blame the UN for not endorsing group C . To me the onlly failure would be if they do not end up getting a consensus on at least one of the options. (I am still hopeful). And the second point of contention is a classic half fulll/half empty debate. I endorse the UN for the success that they have had - especially for Milosivic and also in Rwanda (some priests were recently convicted I believe?). It ain't perfect but it is headed in teh right direction. ...You on the other hand look at the failures where the lack of consensus allowed attrocities to go unchallenged. And deem the UN to be a failure. BTW - the polls clearly show that the US and the world much prefer a situation where the UN does function. Bush has been on the hot seat for trying to ride roughshod over the UN and it has hurt his support. But - if they do get the compromise resolution and support from the majority of the security council then France and Russia will be on the hot seat. IMO - there is a good chance that they will abstain.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (68579)	3/12/2003 8:14:53 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: "Put Sharon on trial. I would, based on what I know, convict him for allowing the Christians to slaughter the Muslims." The Palestinians agreed to leave Beirut. It was believed that they would leave fighters behind in the camps. Either Israelis or Phalangists were required to search the camps. The Israelis sent the Phalangists in. They told the Phalangists not to harm civilians. The Israeli committee of inquiry said that the Israeli command should have known that the Phalangists would murder civilians and the Israeli military on the scene should have discovered the crime and put a stop to it. What would you convict Sharon of? Truman dropped 2 A-bombs, ostensibly to save the lives of American servicemen who would have died in an invasion. Sharon sent in Phalangists to save the lives of his soldiers if there were fighters in the camps.