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 (131419)	5/4/2004 5:02:35 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Iraqis had a government, of which you and I might not approve, but it functioned, and it is difficult for me to accept that the US has sole jurisdiction in making decisions about who should rule in countries other than the US. Sure it functioned.. It launched two major regional wars within the space of 10 years... .. killed thousands on both sides, used chemical weapons, ...stockpiled another 1 MILLION TONNES of explosive ordnance for arming its military machine...... ...committed genocide numbering in the hundreds of thousands against its own citizens.. ...attempted to assassinate a former US president.. ...was providing the equivalent of 10 years in annual income to the families of suicide bombers... ...inflicted ecological devastation on a gigantic ecosystem... ... diverted billions of dollars from the oil for food program building huge palaces while its people lived in abject poverty... Yeah... Iraq had a government alright.. A government of the few, for the few, and by the few... Now, you may argue all you want that you do want the US to do this, and do it against the votes of other nations on the security council, but you must understand, that the same arguments could be made to invade the US. Listen X.. if the US was the subject of Chapter VII UNSC binding resolutions, we'd BETTER DAMN WELL ABIDE BY THEM.. or else they UNSC would be justified in using "all necessary means" to enforce that resolution.. We're talking Chapter VII resolutions here.. There have only been a VERY limited number of such resolutions in the history of the UN.. Think about the Korean War X.. The only reason that war occurred under UN auspices is because the Soviet Union abstained from voting and using their permanent veto authority.. A mistake they never made again... So we have to question whether the US, and/or other nations, would have rallied to defend S. Korea, or were even justified in crossing the 38th parallel and invading N. Korea to topple that regime as punishment (which brought in the Chinese).. That may indeed be the answer- perhaps we all need to be evil, to "win"- that was the message of Colonel Kurtz in Apolcalypse Now. That answer doesn't really thrill me. I certainly hope that you don't believe it thrills me either.. Nor does it thrill anyone (at least the semi-sane) who's ever worn an uniform... Because it certainly doesn't thrill me.. It greatly concerns me.. But I also just want to apply maximum force to the issue, overwhelm the enemy, and get this over with as soon as possible. But I also recognize that you can't ignore history, or the reality of human brutality. Our high-minded, moralistic values will mean nothing if we are unwilling to defend them, or to match the brutality of those who don't necessarily share them.. Let these nations fall to Islamic fundamentalism and I feel pretty certain that we're condemning millions to death and oppression.. Hawk