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 (69163)	4/3/2003 8:28:28 AM
From: Gary Ng	Respond to of 70976

RE: I regard Iraqis as civilized, but I did expect more torture and gas. However, it is the standard procedure for a country to protect its civilian population from invaders. It is not generally considered the responsibility of the invaders to protect civilians Finally, we agree on something 1. They are better than you expected 2. US is invading, not liberating

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69163)	4/3/2003 8:32:52 AM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: I don't hear one peep of criticism of the Iraqis from Europe or the anti-war movement. I am anti-war(this war) not anti-"how to fight the war".

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69163)	4/3/2003 8:44:29 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

It is not generally considered the responsibility of the invaders to protect civilians It is this time, because the invaders are trying to convince the world that they are doing this for the people they are invading. Once again, the world turns a blind eye to this inversion of morality. What "inversion of morality"??? Here the Iraqis are using mosques as forts Uh, what exactly did you expect? That they should stay in Saddam's palaces and known military establishments so that they would be blown to kingdom come in the first night of bombing? Of course they will hole up in places they think invaders will attack last. Please don't say we were not invited to Iraq. Americans were not invited to Iraq. There was no freedom of press to invite us And previously, in situations where the US interfered, there were ads in the free press to ask for the US to come in? We do know the people in Halabja did not invite Saddam. And the fact that Saddam brutally repressed a rebellion in some Kurdish villages more than a decade ago means what, exactly, in this context? That since Kurds didn't invite Saddam to gas them more than a decade ago, other countries have the right to invade Iraq when they wish? I look forward to less arguments that start (and end) with "But he is evil" or "But he killed Kurds 12 years ago!" and more "Invading Iraq now is better than all alternatives because....".