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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (530369)	1/27/2004 9:30:48 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (530369)	1/27/2004 9:41:54 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Group faults US argument for war By Michael McDonough, Associated Press, 1/27/2004 LONDON -- The Iraq war cannot be justified as an intervention in defense of human rights even though it ended a brutal regime, Human Rights Watch said yesterday, dismissing one of the Bush administration's arguments for the invasion. The advocacy group said in its annual report that while Saddam Hussein had an atrocious record on human rights and life has improved for Iraqis since his ouster, his worst actions occurred long before the war. The group said no mass killing was underway or imminent in Iraq when war began. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain cited the threat from Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction as their main reason for attacking Iraq. But as coalition forces have not found evidence of such weapons, both leaders also have highlighted the brutality of the regime when justifying military intervention. But Human Rights Watch rejected such claims. "The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair," executive director Kenneth Roth said. Atrocities such as Hussein's mass killing of Kurds in 1998 would have justified humanitarian intervention, Roth said. "But such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter," he added. "They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past." The 407-page Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 also said the US government was applying "war rules" to the struggle against global terrorism and denying terror suspects their rights. It suggested that "police rules" of law enforcement should be applied in such cases instead. "In times of war you can detain someone summarily until the end of the war, and you can shoot to kill. And those are two powers that the Bush administration wants to have globally," Roth said. "I think that's very dangerous." Human Rights Watch criticized the United States for detaining 660 "enemy combatants" without charges at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Most of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan. "The administration's actions display a perilous belief that, in the fight against terrorism, the executive is above the law," the report said. Government officials have said the detentions are vital to intelligence-gathering and that information gleaned from prisoners has led to arrests around the world. The group, which is based in New York, also said European and other governments were ignoring human rights abuses in the conflict in Chechnya. boston.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (530369)	1/27/2004 9:49:14 AM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Yes, we did lose three more soldiers today. Just imagine how Americans would feel were postal workers in this country to experience a dozen to two dozen daily casualties. Indeed, we concentrate on the growing death count, but the casualty count is reaching into many Americans homes and impacting many American families. All of this against the linguring backdrop question: Why? After all, Americans suffered nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11. Do we really when Iraq is finished need to see 3,000 more American deaths? Our response to 9/11 was and should have remained against the Taliban which was supported and provided cover for Al Qaeda. Bush's anti-terror emphasis should have remained on religious fundamentalist extremists, not on a dictator of a secular government that was diametrically opposed to religious fundamentalism. In Iraq, Bush has taken the right and just cause, but barked up the wrong tree with it. And now Americans are dying and having their limbs torn from this needless war.