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: epicure who wrote (130831)	5/1/2004 10:53:45 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Can you tell me how you know this is right? Is it based on results? Sure... Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would likely still be alive today... They certainly wouldn't have been buried in mass graves with a bullet hole through the skull.. And we likely would have drastically interdicted the rise of Shiite and Sunni radicalism in the region (which would have prevented even more human rights violations). What if the results end up killing more people than Saddam would have, is it still right? Depends on who we're killing.. It's like targeting those who are empowering the promotion of militant and totalitarian ideas, or benefitting from those who are promoting such violence.. I have no problem killing those who would seek to dominate and brutalize others.. even if they are not combatants. Just like I wouldn't shed a tear over killing the family of terrorist leaders.. Because no terrorist is an island.. They require extensive family and community support in order to actualize their agenda. It's kind of like the time travel question.. Would you kill the parents of Hitler or Stalin, in order to prevent their births, if you could travel through time (or even just kill these two thugs in their childhood? Yeah... I probably would.. And maybe some people would rather just "give them a hug" and hope that changed their hearts, but I don't think I would have been willing to take such a chance... If the criteria is human rights abuses will we soon be going to Africa to install "freedom" there? It probably should... But it would be obviously difficult to justify unless had been threatened or attacked by their governments. And with regard to Iraq, both occurred... Saddam constantly threatened the US, and he tried to assassinate Bush Sr. And he continued to threaten his neighbors, including Kuwait. But most of all, he threatened the international order, as represented by the UNSC's binding (enforceable) resolutions. Personally, I would like to see more emphasis placed upon selective "removal" of dictatorial leaders unwilling cease the repression of their population. At least the implicit threat that the US, let alone the international community, will no longer tolerate such repression would probably be enourmously helpful.. At the very least, we should enact policies that prevent them from hiding their ill-gotten financial booty within our banking system (and Bush has gone far to advance this policy, IMO). Hawk