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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JustTradeEm who wrote (94642)	4/18/2003 6:42:25 PM
From: jerry manning	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

JB, Absolutely agree w/ you. Some folk get on a crusade over a single incident and have a fit over it. The girl faired well. Think of another situation where she is beckoned...sweetly, to the soldiers and then triggers a bomb, mine, or simply pulls a pistol and starts shooting once she closes to a few meters. There were no bullies. She was not harmed. Scared the heck out of her, but no harm done. The soldiers (19-20) year old kids, did it RIGHT. After being shot several times, a soldier begins to believe that the next person approaching him is a direct or indirect (set-up) attempt to kill him. If he fails to adapt to the mindset of point first (did not say shoot) and then ask questions, his probability of surviving the dangers of Baghdad is greatly lessened. To think they acted improperly is inconsistent with every rational thought of self preservation and common sense IMO.

To: JustTradeEm who wrote (94642)	4/18/2003 10:13:54 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<nobody threatened to kill her ... she was asked to leave and didn't .... > JB, When somebody points a gun at somebody, that is a threat to kill them. To make it easy to figure out, if somebody points a gun at the said soldiers, they will consider it a threat to kill and will pre-emptively kill first. They would be right to consider pointing a gun a threat to kill them. The only reason to point a gun is to threaten to kill. If there is no countervailing threat, then there is no reason to point the gun. Part of the idea of democracy and freedom, which the liberators claim to be delivering, is the right to express opinions. Which she did. Maybe it is only the right to express delight at the incoming invaders, in approved form after obtaining a government permit. That's a weird idea of democracy and freedom if you ask me. Be grateful for the Mouthy Broads - they show that there actually is some freedom being delivered and the USA troops are not Taliban and Saddam equivalents. Accidentally-on-purpose shooting of her [as mentioned by Nadine] would have shown the USA is not a delivery vehicle for the vaunted freedom. It would have shown that Mouthy Broads are persona non grata as far as the Taliban and USA troops are concerned. Maybe forelock-tugging and adulatory flower giving are really what is wanted. That's not democracy. That's the Saddam way. In case you haven't noticed, the USA is made up of wildly divergent opinions and acrimony so you shouldn't be surprised when Iraq has the same hot mix of ideas. Plenty of which are of course as wacky as hell, but that's what you get with freedom and democracy. Shooting Mouthy Broads by accident-on-purpose is not all a bad thing if I read various commentators here correctly. No wonder not everyone on earth is lining up to be ruled by Pax Americana and not everyone on earth is expressing undying love for the New World Order. The world has seen a lot of empires. Few have been delightedly received and beneficial to the aborigines. Americans will have to foregive we unAmerican types if we aren't totally thrilled by everything we read in cyberspace about how we should be disposed of. The now freedom-loving USA got its start on the backs of slaves and from land stolen from the aborigines. We saw what happened to them. We worry that some more slaves are needed and more aboriginal property is to be confiscated. Like oil for example. King George II is doing a pretty good job and so are the people who are backing him up. Fortunately, the more rabid are not running the show. If I was allowed to vote, instead of just paying taxes to the King George, I'd vote for him. No declaration of independence from me [yet]. <Considering the danger that the "general public" over there presents to military, one has to be pretty stupid to ignore military requests to leave. > I agree that one needs to be pretty stupid to think that wacko, vicious, thuggish, misogynist, accidentally-on-purpose types haven't got hold of guns. Overall, the USA is doing a great job, but one needs to be mindful that not all will do the right thing. Especially when being disputatious with them. Fortunately, the management of the USA military is so excellent that they don't leave individuals alone to indulge their personal whims. The success of the campaign has shown the excellence of the USA military and we can be grateful for that. Syria will now be sorted out too, probably with zero casualties on both sides. Lebanon too. Then, on to Gaza. And let's not forget to redesign the UN into something suitable for the 21st century. Mqurice