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 (70615)	9/18/2003 1:04:10 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Psst Fred - I have a strong suspiciou that thames_sider agrees with me (far more than with you) in pretty much all I have written to you re Iraq and Bush's war of aggression therein. My comments don't allow you to do zip, except hide your head in the sand so as not to be confronted by them. Any response to my last post to you, by any chance?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (70615)	9/18/2003 3:30:40 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Mugabe hasn't committed genocide yet, no. He is however the only national leader I know of engaged in the knowing, willing, planned and specific oppression of his people as a policy... this does make him fairly impressive, he doesn't hide what he's doing. Zimbabwe's also a case where intervention would be practical as well as desirable... However, I doubt if Aug Lee (I'm terrible at names) would be alive in Iraq. Probably true - Ang Lee probably would not. But the only reason she is still (I hope) alive is that the Burmese fear the repercussions of her public death... We've done nothing to help or aid any democratic opposition to Saddam in Iraq, not least because we don't like the likely result of a free vote there. IMO they're no less ruthless (ask the Karens), just less publicised and in a less strategic area. as the argument that Saddam didn't commit genocide recently... If this were our motive for intervention, well, it would have been believable 15 years ago. As it was, we were supplying Saddam with the means and materials for genocide while and after we knew he was committing it. Do you honestly not see any issue with our invading Iraq and overthrowing him now, for what he did with our tacit acceptance in the 1980's when he was our ally...? His crimes aren't trivial, no. but they weren't justification enough for complete derogation of international law when he comitted them... they weren't even bad enough for any action or censure, then. They're not even a fig-leaf and it's dishonest to pretend they were Bush's/Cheney's reason for occupation. The only argument that I can see against invasion of both Iraq and N Korea, is ...that the consequences of direct actions may be worse than passivity. Well, quite. As some of us were yelling before and during the invasion of Iraq. It won't help - except if your aim is the annexation of Iraq's oil... - and it will make the world situation worse. Korea's nastier. It's worth thinking about the consequences, and the alternatives, before invading Poland... on whatever trumped-up justification. No matter how much money might go to the friendly industries. you been following the scandal about Iraqi oil bribes getting in Chiravc's parties pockets? Haven't heard of this. I've heard about ELF being used as a slush fund for the French govt to pay off dubious causes... not the other way around. Got any - reputable, attested - links? [No, DEBKA and Andrew Sullivan's blogs are not reputable... notorious, maybe]. If you credit this, though - how do the sums compare to what Halliburton and Bechtel are making? Just a thought... BTW did you know that cheney's VP salary is nearly matched by what HAL are still paying him, after he swore they weren't?