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: greenspirit who wrote (106632)	7/20/2003 12:47:19 PM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<The Iraqi people now have an opportunity to build a nation where human rights, human dignity, and the expression of liberty can come forth. Who created this environment? President Bush, the American military, and everyone who supported the endeavor. Contrast that with those who cling to an Iraq where Saddam would still be in power murdering and torturing people who may have committed such horrible crimes as buying a cell-phone, satellite dish, or simply speaking out against Hussein.>> This all very heart warming outstanding stuff.....I don't mean that in a cynical way either. I think that everyone agrees that it's great that Saddam is removed however, there seems to be an element here who think that anyone who disagreed with this conflict is pro Saddam (reference your last paragraph above). It seems to be the easy way out of arguing questions of deception etc. If we're in the business of liberating nations from torturous thugs committing civil rights atrocities why aren't the PNAC folks gearing up for Operation freedom in these nations?!?!? I guess these aren't sexy enough....throw these bones to that liberal nestbed instead, the UN. worldpress.org news.bbc.co.uk Using civil rights abuses NOW as a core reason for the invasion of Iraq will yield even more inconsistencies in this administration's foreign policy (and previous one's for that matter). Why weren't we so caring of civil rights in Iraq back in the 80's when we SUPPORTED Saddam when we KNEW he was gassing his own people???? commondreams.org <<Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action. Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.” A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.>> It's not easy having it both ways. MON

To: greenspirit who wrote (106632)	7/21/2003 2:44:54 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

"Interesting, and the truth is President Bush and the American military have saved far more lives in Iraq, through the war effort, then would have been killed under Saddams hell-hole." Estimates of 10,000 Iraqi deaths since the war began. A linear extrapolation indicates that in 10 years the number of dead would be far greater than what Saddam achieved. This "analysis" is just as irrelevant as your hell-hole remark. "Saved them from tyranny, saved them from oppression, saved them from death, and saved them from rape and torture." I doubt that Bush II and company have saved the Iraqi people from death, rape, oppression, and torture. These acts will continue to happen, just under a new government. More important is the damage done to the UN, the US economy, and the viability of international law by the Bush II government. This is what most of the criticism of Bush II is about. You have chosen to avoid this facet of the problem. Äs far as your remarks about Stalin, the US didn't become anti-Stalin in 1945 it continued its anti-communism program, witness the cold war which continued long after Stalin's death.