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: Sun Tzu who wrote (138240)	6/28/2004 10:36:56 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Glad to see you can reduce the Iraq issue down to a wealth transfer to US oil companies. Perhaps you can meet with the UN and convince them that Saddam was compliant after all.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (138240)	6/28/2004 10:49:31 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But I can't allow people who did not send their own kids to the war and got to stuff their pockets with the people's money claim the moral high ground on this. With the exception of the above, I could argue with your premise and you could win a little ground and I could win a little. But, when you say something like this, I can't help but strongly disagree with you and ask for your reasons for saying this. I don't believe it. Help me out here. To me, it sounds very partisan.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (138240)	6/28/2004 10:52:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

what does the war cost your town? costofwar.com

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (138240)	6/29/2004 12:03:10 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I thought your post was very well thought out and very well stated. The only reservation I have is with respect to the "got to stuff their pockets with other people's money," inference. I don't doubt that this war and the buildup to it have been good for business and I don't doubt that many of those who run such businesses were supporters of the war, but I don't think that was their major motivation. I think it's more likely that many of those whose children don't serve are adamant supporters because they get the same "lift" that sports fans who gravitate to the "world champion" teams experience. They just like to see their "team" kick ass and take names. It makes THEM feel tough makes THEM feel like winners and gives them that good ole sense of belonging that you get from being part of a winning team. I think that's the reason it's so easy for them to convince those who are in the cannon fodder groups to see the war as righteous and honorable. They too want to be tough, determined and seen as winners. It's only when the buck stops on their families doors that the fantasy of war is overwhelmed by the reality of loss. I saw the Michael Moore movie and the most chilling scene was a woman in Iraq who had lost family. Her grief, her pain and her rage were universal and chilling because it was directed at US, and for reasons which were hard to dispute. The other moving scene involved the American mother whose son was lost in Iraq. She was proud of him for going but after his loss she couldn't deal with the question of "why." I think that if those who make the "tough" decisions to go to war, to continue the war and to escalate the war really want to be seen as truly "tough," then, as you suggest, they ought to prove it by taking lethal risks themselves; not by encouraging others to take the risks and then hitching a ride on the valor of those as if it was their own.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (138240)	6/29/2004 4:16:08 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What exact proof of this do you have... got to stuff their pockets with the people's money .... And please don't send any yellow rag journalism, either.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (138240)	6/30/2004 10:28:04 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

the invasion of Iraq was unjustified because Iraq had not taken part in attacks upon US, nor was it in a position to deliver a threat to our vital interests. Incorrect. 1.Saddam ordered the assassinatIon of a sitting US President. 2. The availability of oil IS a vital US interest as well as an vital interest to the global economy....having a madman like Saddam sitting on the second largest proven oil reserves and adjacent to the largest proven reserves was in fact a threat to US vital interests....