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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (77809)	7/1/2006 1:41:41 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

That's the problem I have with the Israelis, too. They attack first and call it self defense. When did they attack first? 1967? They had nearly a million troops massed on their borders, and had spent a month jawing at the UN. That doesn't count as fear of a future attack at an unspecified time. My impression is that the Israelis are not concerned with vengeance. Their fixation is deterring those who are committed to their destruction.

To: Cogito who wrote (77809)	7/1/2006 1:55:06 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 81568

Now, having said all that, I'll take it one step farther. Applying the same standard, we must say that it's immoral for a nation to attack another one for revenge, and it's even more immoral for a nation to attack another one preemptively. And don't EVEN start giving me a bunch of crap about us not having any choice. That's a complete cop out and an abdication of responsibility. In the case of the action in Afghanistan, I think the U.S. was justified. Not for reasons of vengeance, but because the Taliban was openly harboring the people who had attacked us, and those people were vowing to attack us again. I find it curious how the Left has retrospectively embraced the Afghan campaign. They certainly didn't approve at the time, and cries of humanitarian catastrophe and quagmire flew thick and fast, if my memory serves. Don't bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age, they cried. For the attack on Afghanistan, the reason was deterrence. For Iraq, which I agree was a war of choice, it was both deterrence - pick somebody allied with the terrorist side to beat up, and there was unfinished business with Saddam - and a humanitarian attempt to break up the vile status quo in the Middle East. At the beginning of the war, the only two populations who really supported the idea seemed to be America and Iraq. I don't know if the Iraqis would have supported it if they knew how high a price they would have to pay, but you have to remember that life under Saddam was terrible except for a favored few, and the running kill rate of his regime was high, tens of thousands even when he didn't have a war on. That has to be taken into account imo. For example if some country were to invade Zimbabwe, overthrow Mugabe who is destroying the country on a fast track, and put it back on its feet, would you consider it an absolutely immoral endeavor?