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: SBHX who wrote (150074)	10/31/2004 2:23:44 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<I don't believe the broad majority of americans are ready to accept defeat so easily> It is the counter-productive methods of the militarists, which are leading to defeat. The methods I advocate, will eventually win against the Islamic militants. I am not the defeatist here. <is it not logical to project the fall of Saigon into this?> Ah....the old hoary LesserEvil argument. Three problems with this: 1. It puts you on an endless slippery slope to hell. 2. There is nothing Lesser about our Evil. Just like Saddam, and just like Stalin, we carry out the collective punishment of cities, fill the prisons with "enemies of the State" (the modern term is "terrorist", or "illegal combatant") who get tortured and murdered, and violently impose our will on weaker peoples. The Lancet (most prestigious medical journal on the planet) says that our war of aggression has resulted in "at least 100,000 excess deaths in Iraq". And, as in all wars, 90%+ of these dead are innocents. Even the Jihadists probably won't be able to out-do Bush's kill-rate. 3. We are teaching the Iraqi people, that the only thing we respect is force, and the only way they will force us out, is to organize armies, and kill Westerners any way they can, till we go home. So, the longer we stay, the more certain it is, that the ground will be held by Jihadists after our defeat. The day Saddam's statue came down, we should have handed the country over to a (relative) moderate (like Sistani). That opportunity is now passed. When we go, the ground will be held by somebody like Sadr, or perhaps one of Saddam's Generals. Or a patchwork of feuding warlords, (the Afghanistan model). Every month we stay, makes things worse, not better. I voted for the Green Party candidate. I hope Bush wins, because: 1. Whoever wins the Presidency, is going to be blamed for losing the Iraq war. 2. If Kerry wins, the Republicans will shout themselves hoarse, blaming the wimpy/grouphug/coward Democrats for not "staying the course", not "showing resolve", not being Real Men (=men who habitually kill to solve problems). 3. When force doesn't work, the only answer militarists have is: use more force.