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: GST who wrote (126187)	3/14/2004 5:28:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I would have opposed Hitler for the same reason I oppose foreign policy under Bush -- Hitler pursued a policy of unilateral invasion of sovereign states without legitimate issues of self-defense. And of course, Saddam never invaded anyone, right? Hitler was ELECTED in a legitimate election, GST.. (prior to his later seizing full control over the entire government). Saddam never was.. Any election he participated in was never credibly opposed, being merely an exercise in fake legitimization through intimidation. Thus, you would have been required to admit that Hitler's regime was legitimate (and this was never questioned at the time).. But why not just admit it.. You prefer non-elected strongmen running a country, considering them far more legitimate than any council of diverse representatives of the various power factions in Iraq.. Why even hold elections? Just bring back the Baathist regime, right? After all, Saddam is still alive.. So I guess you're demanding that we permit him to resume power? Nice legitimacy there, right? Don't even make him face a contested election.. Just put him back in power since removing him was somehow (in your delusional perception) "illegal". Hawk

To: GST who wrote (126187)	3/14/2004 11:58:40 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<And as for Japan, they always claimed that they only attacked in "self-defense" just as your dear friend G. Bush claims. Japan needed the resources and interpreted any threat to foreign sources of commodities to be a threat to Japan> The analogy is even closer than that. The crucial resource which Japan needed, and which a U.S.-organized embargo was denying them, was........oil. Japan felt they needed to occupy the oil fields in Indonesia, to defend their vital national interests. Just an U.S. energy policy amounts to: garrison the Middle East oil fields. And, like Japan, the war leaders of America did an effective PR campaign, which convinces their own country (but no one else) that it was a necessary and defensive war. Too bad there won't be a war crimes trial at the end of Bush's career.