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: Sig who wrote (105134)	7/13/2003 7:15:48 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Sig: Aside from the morality of invading a sovereign nation, killing thousands of people and doing everything possible to assassinate its leader, and then occupying the country more or less forever with a puppet government and an army of occupation to prevent it from having WMD that in fact disarmed itself from ten years ago, and basing our WMD claims on lies, half-truths and assumptions, while telling our allies to go to hell and pissing on international law -- all of that aside -- you think this has been a good move for national security. Think again. What Bush has done is to create a basis for hatred and distrust of Americans that exceeds anything that has ever existed. Bin Laden could not have found a better "ally" for his terrorist dreams to come true that your pal George Bush. As for WMD, Bush has shown that disarmament won't help our enemies -- only the possession of WMD can make our enemies safe from our military. North Korea is a case in point. Our policies are convincing other countries to get the only weapons that matter -- nukes and the most dangerous bio-weapons. I also travel a great deal -- about 2 million miles in the last ten years, all over the world -- and I can tell you I have never ever felt more inclined to fear for my safety than I have with George "bring-em on" Bush looking fanning hatred around the world.

To: Sig who wrote (105134)	7/14/2003 11:49:37 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Sig; Re: "Saddams demise is an example of what happens to any country that even thinks of developing and using WMD's in defiance of an organization like the UN, or in defiance of a coalition of the willing which consisted of up to 50 nations .who supported our actions in Iraq in one way or another, it should be a deterant to other nations planning to develop WMD's in secret." (1) None of the other "axis of evil" countries has used Iraq's example as a reason to come clean. North Korea is the same old same old, making nukes as fast as they can and still no agreement for inspections. Iran is beaming hate TV into Iraq and training some of the rebels in Iraq, including the ones that killed 6 UK soldiers. (2) Your argument is a great example of the ends supposedly justifying the means. In addition to this being the morality of those who are criminally insane, (note that your "means" mostly involves the sacrifice of Iraqis, not Americans, and certainly not yourself), Bush is so bankrupt, intellectually, that he never even managed to collect the ends. I'm trying to figure out who was the most insane. Bush who brutally invaded a country fully expecting and planning that the local police and military to welcome his troops with open arms, or Hitler who knew that the locals would hate him and fight back, but figured that he had enough troops to beat the world's revenge. (3) Your mentioning "a coalition of the willing which consisted of up to 50 nations" is a rote repetition of sorry propaganda. Only UK and US soldiers were killed in Iraq, and the reason for this is very clear. To a first approximation, that's all that was over there. Those other 48 nations gave moral support only, and damn little of that. (4) Re: "deterant". What the war has proved is that if you have nukes (i.e. North Korea, China or USSR), you're home free. But if you don't have them, then you can be attacked provided you do something so horrible (invading Kuwait) that the UN writes you up for it. Most of our real opponents have never been written up by the UN, so the threat is non existent. Oh, and all this argument is quite inconsistent with the neo con artist belief that the UN is no longer relevant. -- Carl