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: jttmab who wrote (172677)	10/17/2005 4:51:23 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You know, you can make an argument that supporting Saddam, and sending him weapons, and buying his oil, was the "right" thing to do, and you can make an argument it wasn't. What we really shouldn't do, though (imo), is pretend people are traitors, or that they support brutal dictators, just because they support a different foreign policy. Wanting Saddam as a bulwark against Iran (Reagan), and sending aid, or money for oil, is no more a validation of Saddam's brutal regime than when people now are against the war because 1.it costs too much 2. it's end is uncertain and 3. there is not justification for attacking a country because you want to institute a regime change. It is possible to need to deal with a brutal tyrant (though I would argue there ARE ways to apply a bit more pressure than the US often does- and this applies right now to China, the Petrostans, Nigeria, etc), OR to oppose invading a country which has brutal tyrant, even though one recognizes the brutality of the tyrant involved. There is no international law that I know of that allows countries to make subjective judgments about tyrants of other countries, thus giving them the right to invade that country. It annoys me greatly that people are not able to separate the threads of arguments about this, and that some people simplify it to "You're against the war, you support Saddam." That's just so stupid it makes me weep for the people who think that way. There are so many very good reasons one might be against this war- and there are very few good reasons to be for it (the best one they have is the ends justifying the means argument- but that assumes the end is somewhat certain, and in our favor, and sadly, I don't think that can be assumed.) I understand the folks who favor the war. I don't agree with them, and unfortunately many of their reasons don't hold up, but if the end does turn out to be good, they will always have that. Unfortunately they won't realize that betting on an uncertain end, in violation of international law, and against the odds, isn't really a very good precedent (imo, anyway). It's like those folks that bet their life savings on the lottery and win- and for every one of those folks, how many just lose their life's savings? Well, I wish them a happy end to their war, despite my disagreement with it.

To: jttmab who wrote (172677)	10/17/2005 5:42:28 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>"I agree. The closest I can think of occurred in an exchange between jlallen and myself. I pointed out that Reagan and Bush Sr. supported Saddam while he was slaughtering the Iraqis and Iranians and jlallen said that supporting Saddam was the right thing to do at the time. jlallen, always the faithfull conservative."<< And then there was Swartzkopf after Gulf I meeting with the defeated Iraqi military and giving them back the use of their Helo Gun Ships and then Bush I in our name stood there while they used them to slaughter the Shia and Kurdish insurgents. Then there was the Repug led Congress authorizing Clinton to get Saddam but specifically denying him the use of any US military and to make sure he did not do anything with either Osama or Saddam they impeached him for adultery. And oh btw, what was good old Louie Freeh doing during all this??... yup...ignoring any email that could possibly get thru the obsolete card punch systems he had and sucking up to Starr because he thought illicit sex was very, very bad. Oh, but what the hell?...Bush II get his guidance from his father, the supernatural one, and Miers believes the world was created 6000 years ago.