SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (2248)3/24/2003 9:59:15 AM
From: Enigma  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
How can ordinary people try to kill Sadaam? Look how impossible it was for the German Generals. We're going to see a lot of rationalisation here for this horrible killing but I agree with X's post completely.



To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (2248)3/24/2003 10:04:13 AM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 21614
 
From a series of Carl "Bilow" posts....
"The basic problem with Bush is that he is running in what traders call "hope mode". In this mode, one hopes that everything will turn out okay, but strains to avoid seeing reality for what it is.

The Israelis have never conquered a major Arab city, other than Beirut. And that was while Beirut was held only by a disorganized rabble, more at war with itself than with Israel.

There's a reason for this, and it's the same as the reason that the Israelis still don't have peace in Palestine.

Like I've told you guys before, it is true that you can have peace at the barrel of a gun. But you have to pull the trigger. And keep pulling it over and over. Until you kill 5% or so of the population.

Q. Are you promoting this idea?!

I am not promoting the idea of killing 5% of Iraq in order to "liberate" it. What I am doing is making stark our choices:

(a) Kill 5% of Iraq and roast in hell.

(b) Leave with our tails stuck firmly between our legs.

These are the choices that a moronic administration with no fear of painting itself into corners has brought us.


Most of us are illiterate and stupid. It will be some time before we figure out that the true choices are the above. Even then, a substantial number of people will vote for (a).

The problem with (a) is that the Arab capital is not Baghdad. It's Cairo. Just like it is impossible to attack Britain without eventually having to fight the Americans, it is also impossible to fight Iraq without also eventually having to fight the rest of the Arabs.

Q. "You've suddenly got a lot more pessimistic (more than me, now), and a lot angrier. What happened?"

When your country is at war, your natural instinct is to support it. It is only when it becomes obvious that the war is unwinnable that your instinct is overridden. At that time, great anger comes forth from a feeling of betrayal. Other people will feel it later.

Imagine how the British felt who saw early on that King George's attempt to keep the American colonies was doomed. Or the Americans who realized that Vietnam wasn't winnable.

No hopeless war is moral."



To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (2248)3/24/2003 10:29:13 AM
From: zonder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
A soldier going in to invade a country should not be that surprised if he is killed or taken prisoner imho. And neither should his family.



To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (2248)3/24/2003 3:08:34 PM
From: epicure  Respond to of 21614
 
Iraqis shouldn't be sheltered from the images either
of course we are the aggressor
bearing a larger burden of the blame (IMO)- aggressors always do- one always hopes the aggression can be balanced against a really good cause- not sure we have that here, hence my opposition to this war. But everyone involved should have to watch. I see no reason to hide the truth to spare feelings- on either side.