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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (89063)	11/22/2004 10:52:34 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

"For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam" If the above were true, that would make it necessary for the US to be engaged in wars world wide, against numerous dictators. It is simply not advisable to do that- plus you can't do it, except when the dictator in question happens to be very weak (because the US doesn't want to fight anyone really strong, now does it? Otherwise we would have saved the people of Tibet, but we didn't. Or the people of China, during the cultural revolution, but we didn't. Or the people of Russia, from the KGB, but we didn't (and let's face it, we couldn't. Have you any idea what numbers of dead are involved there? How about the number of dead in Iraq while we were friends with Saddam?). War is not an answer to humanitarian crises, when war tends to MAKE humanitarian crises. If there is an invasion (a al WWII) war works pretty well to oppose such a thing. But war is not a very good solution. Although I guess to this administration, which only has the hammer of war, everything looks like a nail.

To: longnshort who wrote (89063)	11/22/2004 6:53:11 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

We had Saddam contained. He was in his late sixties. This situation was not going to continue forever. Even though there were definitely horrendous human rights abuses during his regime, that does not make the destruction of Iraq by the United States the logical next step, and that unfortunately is what is happening now. The world is a terrible place, with many horrible dictators. We only step in when it is in our strategic interests to do so (or a cowboy president is avenging an assassination attempt on his daddy, perhaps). There are horrible famines going on right now in Africa, and genocide in the Sudan, and we are barely helping.