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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (21877)	10/15/2004 10:04:11 AM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Re: Post of "David" that Friends Forwarded to You Mary Lou: "David" started off well: he articulated the most PRINCIPLED objection to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, to wit, that the decision to go to war with a regime that has not DIRECTLY attacked the U.S. should not be taken LIGHTLY. I agree with that principle. Excuse me if I believe that YOU and many other Bush haters (Yes Mary Lou, you ARE one and if you are honest you will admit it) take this valid principle and take it to an extreme. For there is no moral code that you can show me that absolutely prohibits non-retaliatory wars. As the representative of (democratic) Athens told the beseiged Melians in 416 B.C., "...the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." (Thucydides, "Melian Dialogue") I could give you a thousand other historical examples, but why don't we stay for the moment with the U.S. Please tell me in what way that Spain attacked the U.S. before the Spanish American War? Or what Germany did to us prior to our declaring war in WW ONE? I have previously posted articles from "leftist" thinkers (Ignatieff and Llosa) to the effect that because of Saddam's human rights violations, Iraq was one of those "exceptional" situations where aggressive war was justified. DID YOU SEE THOSE POSTS MaryLou? You never commented. I think a better justification for the war would be an analogy with the situation of a CONVICTED FELON. Once he has been convicted, even minimal violations of probation are enough to justify sending him to prison. Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1989 and was universally condemned. When he lost that war, he personally agreed to "terms of probation." When he violated those terms - even minor terms - we had more than enough justification for an invasion. "DAVID" SPOILED HIS GOOD START AND SHOWED HIS TRUE COLORS. "David" then goes on a "rant" that shows where his true motivation is. He goes into the full litany of sneering asides about Bush: his stupidity, his religious beliefs, etc. As a Bush hater, you do agree with this "slimeing": I know that, but you cannot claim it as thoughtful comment. "David" even goes to the extreme of claiming Kerry is FOR tort reform and then goes on to compare him to Abraham Lincoln!!!!!!! Is that enough comment for you, Mary Lou? Still your friend, Bruce