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: Road Walker who wrote (242310)	7/20/2005 7:38:06 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573850

Semantics don't change anything. Semantics change a lot. Watch. Our basic difference is that you believe we are capable, with our mighty military, of constructing a country out of the ethnic and religious mess that is Iraq. Your rhetoric again is inaccurate and misleading - I don't think the coalition is constructing a country out of a mess, as you put it. I think the coalition has successfully removed an oppressive selfish dictator and is now attempting to put down his supporters and replace them with a local police force. That's what's going on in Iraq. An analogy would be if a violent gang was running rampant and terrorizing a region of the US. When this happens the police go in and capture the gang leader and put him in jail - they don't just stay away because they don't live there. The police then keep a stronger police presence in the area and equip the non-gang residents with the methods to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the the non-captured gang members violently try to regain control - when they do fight back you don't just run away! If your interest is for the region, you fight the killer gang members and try to help the non-gang members to learn to defend themselves. In this case, you would support the police staying in the area, you wouldn't just run away because the gang members are trying to return to terrorizing the region. You probably TOTALLY support this approach if it were in a US city, but when it leaves the US the whole idea of an obligation to prevent a weak people from being oppressed by a strong one for some bizarre reason vanishes from your mind. I think its the moral obligation of every capable person on the planet to free enslaved people from their enslavers. Saddam was denying basic human rights to 80% of the Iraqi population (Shia, Kurd and the ubiquitous "others"). Stopping his oppression of these people is a moral responsibility of whoever is capable to do so. It's the EXACT same as the arguments used to stop apartheid. That's the proper rhetoric that expresses my view, not that the mighty US military can build a nation out of a mess. See the difference. And to clarify your position, every time you make the statement that what is currently happening in Iraq is wrong, you should tack on (so that your rhetoric more accurately represents YOUR view) that the Iraqi population, Shia, Sunni and Kurd, would all be better off under the leadership of Saddam and his wonderful sons Uday and Qusay for the next 30 years than they will be in our lifetime - because that is what you are advocating. I notice you ignored the question of what the Shias and Kurds would have been said if they had been asked three years prior to the invasion "Do you want Saddam's regime removed by an outside force - yes or no?" Does their hypothetical answer to that question matter to you at all? How about the autonomy provided to the Kurds since 1991. It was provided through military force. Do you think that was wrong?

To: Road Walker who wrote (242310)	7/20/2005 1:59:54 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573850

re: Dude, the "war" is over. The current situation in Iraq is not a war, its an effort to give the current Iraqi government the ability to resist and destroy attacks by fanatic killers. Don't "Dude" me. I don't care if you call it a war or a house party, it is what it is. Semantics don't change anything. Our basic difference is that you believe we are capable, with our mighty military, of constructing a country out of the ethnic and religious mess that is Iraq. Not only do you believe that we can do it, you believe that we have the moral right to do it, and in the Iraq case, that it's in our interest to do it. You also believe that the sacrifice of US soldiers and their families and Iraqi deaths and $300Billion and the creation of a terrorist generation and the enmity of most of the world is worth whatever you imagine the positive outcome will be. I believe none of the above. Agreed. Couldn't have said it better myself. ted