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: Brumar89 who wrote (122735)	1/4/2004 12:31:07 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Obviously, you're not a pacifist...> Correct. I am not a pure pacifist. Close, but not completely. I'll condone (yes, even cheer on) violence, in a few strictly limited situations. Such as when a small defenseless nation is the target of a war of aggression, when they have been overrun and occupied. This, to me, is like when a woman has been stalked and cornered by a rapist, and she uses violence to defend herself. In this situation, when she can't flee, I will condone anything she chooses to do, to protect herself. Violence in self-defense, as a last resort. A pure pacifist would say that non-violent resistance will work, in all situations. And maybe they are right. Maybe the Iraqi people could secede from the American Empire, the way India seceded from the British Empire. But I won't blame the victim, by criticizing their methods of self-defense. And there is nothing theoretical about the future wars that would have happened, if the NeoCon plan for Iraq had gone as planned. They laid it out in detail, in public. If Iraq had meekly submitted to our aggression, we'd now be getting ready for Regime Change in N. Korea or Syria or Iran. In the end, that would simply mean more dead young Americans sacrificed on the altar of the God of War.