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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: coug who wrote (3070)	8/28/2005 1:03:41 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540985

I agree with you that we sent some really nutty messages to Saddam- via Glaspe, and how to apportion the blame for that, I do not know. But once Saddam invaded Kuwait, for me, under the rules I would like to see the international community follow, the course was clear. Wars to drive back invaders of other countries are acceptable to me. WWII would thus have been acceptable- and acceptable for me a lot earlier than it was for our government at the time. I did not approve of the slaughter of the retreating Iraqis. But war crimes and ugly things happen in war, and since I expect that they will happen, I do not see them as a reason for not using war, but as a reason for using it very very very carefully.

To: coug who wrote (3070)	8/29/2005 5:56:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540985

Re: "The Highway of Death" and "And I agree about Tibet." If we would have tried to defend Tibet we would have had to have killed a lot more Chinese than we killed Iraqis on that highway. Also it could be argued that we were not thorough enough, rather then too thourough after the first Gulf War. If we had overthrown Saddam then it might have been easier than dealing with Iraq now (but you can't really be sure about this). If we had forged on for a few more days and destroyed more of Saddam's Republican Guard, its possible that Saddam might have been overthrown and the post war massacre's could have been avoided. Of course this is all speculation. Its also possible that if Saddam was weakened he still would have defeated the uprisings but only after an even longer and more brutal period of massacre and repression. Or he could have lost and the country would have been in even worse shape than it is now. To many what if's and uncertainties about the end of that war. I'm not sure second guessing really is useful. As for Tibet what would you have had us do? Message 21649441