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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (229297)	4/14/2005 10:25:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573214

People are getting ostracized whether you believe it or not. "Ostracized" comes from the ancient Greek. People who were ostracized where banished from society. They where kicked out of the city state. Bush hasn't been kicking people out of the country just because they oppose the war. He also hasn't excluded anyone from society. He doesn't have the power. There are scores of millions of liberals in our society. If Bush was foolish and silly enough to try to declare someone banished from society for opposing the Iraq war the liberals would either totally ignore the call, or they would laugh at Bush, or they would scream at or about Bush, but they certainly wouldn't follow the declaration. Fair enough. I'll drop the word ostracized. This country is becoming alienated and isolated from the rest of the world. There are people in this country who increasingly feel alienated from their gov't. Cheney and ole Rummie have hinted at it but haven't come right out with it. So Bush is facist because he calls people who disagree with his decisions unamerican, but then it turns out that it isn't Bush, and in fact no one in the administration actually said such a thing... When I refer to Bush, I mean the entire administration and the voices that speak for him. That includes many of the pundits on Fox. The ones in Cuba were. And the same guy who was in Cuba ended up in Afghanistan as well. Instances of violations are so widespread that I am seriously amazed you would try to defend ole Rummie. No defense of Rumsfeld is needed. Your haven't presented a solid case for the prosecuation. I don't have to defend him, and in fact if you could present a soid case against him I probably woun't want to at least if I didn't have a good reason to consider it unconvincing. Tim, you are so ideologically right there could never be a solid enough case in this world that would convince you of anything negative re. ole Rummie and any other Bush proponent. Nonetheless, there has been enough evidence cited repeatedly that acts were committed in Guat. and Afghanistan that violate the Conventions. In fact, the US has been taken to court by three Brits who were in Guat. That is probably one of the reasons why we withdrew from the World Court......so people like Bush and Rumsfeld can not be tried in absentia. Nothing wrong with quitting a treaty that allows you to quit. Why are you working so hard to diverge from the original premise I was making? Your original statement included the implication that there was something wrong with withdrawing from the treaty with the required notice. If there isn't anything wrong with it than you should not mention it as something that makes Bush a facist or like the nazis. I'm sure I could come up with 100 insignificant similarities between Bush and Hitler, or between Clinton and Hitler for that matter. But its pretty meaningless unless the aspect or action of Bush or Clinton is not just something wrong but something very wrong. Get a clue! We invaded a country without one iota of provocation. I know in your brain you don't think that move was all that significant.......after all, SH was a bad guy and he probably had WMDs and he probably talked with OBL bla bla bla. Nonetheless, the US of A violated the sovereignty of a foreign country because it wanted to. A precedent that normally is associated with tyrants like Hitler. So dude, you need to get use to those comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Its very likely they will continue. He withdrew, then 'violated' them.....just like Bush. Technically, neither were in violation because they were clever enough to withdraw first. If the treaty doesn't allow for a withdrawl, then either the act of withdrawing, or acting against the rules of the treaty even after you declare that you withdraw from it, is a violation. Take your pick. If on the other hand Hitler did withdraw from treaties that had provision for withdrawl then that specific act by Hitler wasn't a violation of the letter or the spirit of the treaty and that specific action by Hitler wasn't wrong. Words.......more meaningless words. You want to play semantics when there are more important things to discuss. ted