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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (6592)	2/4/2004 1:10:14 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Why is getting killed by a MOAB preferable to getting killed by mustard gas? I guess it is quicker, but then on the other hand you may be able to protect yourself from mustard gas, with a MOAB you just kiss your ass goodbye.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (6592)	2/5/2004 12:10:13 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

WMD have been used for millenia, but international law banning their use is fairly recent Which "international law" are you talking about? the issue was the difference between the invansion of Iraq and other US invasions of "undesirable dictatorial republics" in the past 20 years or so I am sorry, but I don't get your reasoning for why a consideration of US invasions of other countries should also be limited to a maximum of twenty years. And what is an "undesirable dictatorial republic", do you think? Is there a "desirable" variety? Anyway, I believe that issue was raised to point out the LACK OF such invasions - so many bloody dictators, so little invasions, in other words. Why do you think that is? Pinochet in Chile - overthrowed the democratically elected Allende with US help and approval. Loads of people in Chile were subsequently tortured, killed, had to flee the country, etc. Saddam in Iraq - He was a "good guy" then, supported against the religious nuts in Iran, buddies with US administration even after he gassed the Kurds. Why do you think US did not invade Iraq when Saddam was at his homicidal best, gassing his own people? And what about that guy with the bad wig in Pakistan, the general who seized power, who is buddies with the US at this day and age? Where is the love of democracy there? Now, do you know of any uses which fit the conditions I laid out in my post? Not sure why your "conditions", handpicked from the Iraqi situation, need to be satisfied for a dictator to be considered dangerous to his own people and to the world, and hence taken out.