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: carranza2 who wrote (141228)	7/22/2004 12:35:44 PM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Don't confuse him with the fact that, subject to some limitations, napalm is allowed as a weapon but that none of Saddam's chemical weapons were. So if I'm burned to death by Napalm rather than killed by Saran Gas, I can die knowing that I was killed by an "allowed" weapon. What a silly argument. A chemical weapon that causes death and destruction is a chemical weapon. Hiding behind "rules" and semantics doesn't make anyone less dead. Just as Robert MacNamara said in "The Fog of War", the only distinction between a war criminal and one who is not considered one is who wins the war. He said that he and LeMay would have been war criminals (in reference to the firebombing of Japan) had they lost the war. So, you can feel somehow morally superior to the "monsters" of the world in that the US kills "more according to the rules". And if Saddam used "not allowed" weapons, are we culpable at all in manufacturing and selling them?