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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56385)	7/26/2004 10:25:16 PM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 794091

Steve, Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died during the Clinton Administration. Further, over half, well over a million and a half Iraqis were killed by Saddam in the 12 years after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Further, the French have already said that they oppose UN sanctions on the Sudan. The only genocide that I can think of that was possibly prevented (preemption), was in Kosovo. Consensus in Rawanda? - Nope. East Timor? - Nope. Bosnia? - Nope. Cambodia? Uganda? Iraq? The Soviet Union? Mao's China? Southern Sudan? One could say, that genocide takes place because the international community could not build a consensus to punish genocide. As far as Iran goes, have you noticed that there are now U.S. troops on Iran's eastern and western borders? re:" Because the genocide in the Sudan is going on right now, and Saddam's worst atrocities took place years ago - many of them when we were on friendly terms with him. Action now in the Sudan could save huge numbers of lives, and it is much easier to build a consensus behind action to prevent genocide than it is to build one behind action to punish genocide."