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: el_gaviero who wrote (167394)	7/27/2005 10:51:19 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"A case shouldn’t be too hard to make." So make it, if you can. The following statement is not accurate. "Start, say, with the USA invading Iraq under a pretext, and killing 40 or 50 thousand of them when they presented no danger to us. I’d say that is a fairly solid foundation on which to build an argument for US tyranny with respect to Iraq.

To: el_gaviero who wrote (167394)	7/27/2005 11:00:40 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

Real conservatives want to preserve an orderly society (and finances) for future generations. They believe in personal responsibility and accountability as a core value. I respect and appreciate this. Taken to the extreme, "conservatism" morphs into fascism and/or rejection of all progress. Real liberals want to bring in new ideas and move the society forward. Here too, responsibility and accountability is a core value (often expressed as "hey-itsa-free-country":) But there is also an emphasis on care and compassion for one's fellow man. This too has its place. Taken to the extreme, "liberalism" morphs into communism or anarchy. Near the center and for most of their spectrum, both sides have more in common with each other than not. But there are those who find it useful to polarize the extremes and wage a war against the middle. This allows them to literally get away with bloody murder and plunder of nation's resources.

To: el_gaviero who wrote (167394)	7/27/2005 11:06:39 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

We maintained sanctions against Iraq for nearly a decade after the first Gulf War. We did that because the regime of Saddam Hussein was considered to be a threat to the peace and freedom of others (that is not disputed anywhere, that I know of). Do you dispute that as fact? During this time hundreds of thousands of innocent people (non-regimists) died as a direct result of the sanctions. Even though the policy was not to target those people, statement from persons like Albright demonstratively made it clear that they were the targets. So, I protested the sanctions as a bad strategy. When we came to a decision point on whether to invade Iraq we had to weigh many issues including the deteriorating support for sanctions, the maneuvering of Saddam to get around them, and the statements from him that indicated he was biding his time until he could garner his resources to take us out. Even though he was not an immediate threat, his cat and mouse gaming made it clear that it was a matter of time until we would have to contend with him militarily. Sooner was clearly better than later. In addition to that his regime was brutal and tyrannical to the extent that any person of conscience has to support his disposition from power.