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

To: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (5126)	3/29/2003 12:11:56 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

I'm going to try to keep this on a peaceful and civil level. However, you make a statement which is not supportable and then you base your conclusion on the reader agreeing with the premise. Let's start from a very basic truism. Sadaam is a horrid dictator who has used every manner of torture to keep his power and enormous wealth. His people are largely starving, if they have managed to survive. From there, one has to come up with a way to eliminate him and his regime for the good of his people. Why? What give us the right? Again, we have the power and the will. It's not a new theory but it's one that I wish we had promulgated earlier in our history and gone after Hitlers and Stalins and yes others. Now, will there be bottom feeders who want oil money or want to profit? Of course! Hopefully, those who see this as a moral crusade first will minimize the corruption and greed. Again, we and our government are not perfect. Yet, there can be no question that to compare us with what rules Iraq or to deny that the Iraqi people will benefit is really sticking one's head in a noose of ignorance.

To: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (5126)	3/29/2003 12:13:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

in WWII we were liberating countries that had already been conquered. In Iraq we are liberating Iraq from Iraqis. They may be awful Iraqis running Iraq, but they are still Iraqis- and I can't remember any country grateful for being liberated from it's indigenous ruler. There may be some country in which this happened, but I certainly can't think of it.

To: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (5126)	3/29/2003 12:35:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Let's get a few historical facts straight here: America sat back and watched through the first 2 years of WW2. Other than some illegal actions by the US Navy (following illegal orders from the CIC, FDR), not one shot was fired in anger against any German or Italian. On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war. (Although, to be fair, they did intend to deliver a declaration just AS the attack began. Thanks, guys. I still call that a sneak attack. Nevertheless, the declaration was not delivered until after the attack was over.) The next day COngress, at FDR's request, declared war on Japan. The attitude regarding Europe and Hitler immediately following Pearl Harbor was "Screw that! We've got our war!" In one of his stupidest moves (and it's hard to rank them, he having committed so many idiocies), Hitler on Dec. 11, 1941, declared war on the US- -which HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DO UNDER HIS MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY WITH JAPAN because Japan was the aggressor. The next day, Congress declared war on Germany. And we were "the good guys". You feel better now? You shouldn't. The fact is that FDR had been itching so bad to get into that European war, it must have hurt. BUT he couldn't because isolationist sentiment was so strong in the US he could never have gotten a declaration of war against Germany without a preceding German declaration or an attack by Germany. Had it not been for Hitler's stupid declaration of war on the US, we very well may never have entered the European war. And by now even our "allies" the frogs would probably know the goose step. NOW: Are you black? Because that is the only reason I can think of that you think we should have intervened in Rwanda, but not Iraq. Oh, if we're after oil and willing to take on anyone without cause, why didn't we attack Venezuela? It's closer and a much softer target. Or Saudi Arabia? More oil and another easy target. I don't understand. Enlighten me. It appears the US is content to get its oil by BUYING it. Business interests? Are you talking about France, Germany, and Russia here?

To: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (5126)	3/29/2003 1:23:44 PM
From: straight-->arrow	Respond to of 21614

Perception as being "good guys" is not for you or I to determine. If you think the majority of people view the US as something other than just and peace-lovers, so be YOUR view and that of those who think they know. -->

To: matthew (Hijacked) who wrote (5126)	3/31/2003 3:08:47 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 21614

Re: Unfortunately, in this war, the Americans are not seen fighting for freedom. They are fighting for OIL and business interests. I ask again, where were the Americans when hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in Rwanda? Nonsense. And where were the Americans when thousands were slaughtered in Bosnia and Kosovo? Is there any oil in Kosovo? Again, the current CRUSADE in Iraq's got nothing to do with oil --NOTHING. It's all about Israel and the Judeofascists' obsession over Jerusalem... Once Saddam and Iraq are crushed into submission, the Judeofascist plan goes, a Palestinian state will be offered ON ISRAEL'S TERMS, that is, without East Jerusalem. Gus