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: Ilaine who wrote (22801)	7/4/2006 8:56:51 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541370

I have beenreading your posts elsewhere, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you: Message 22511353 1. I think it is impossible to have wars without atrocities. War is by its nature organized killing of others- it's bound to get out of hand from time to time, and men who are supposed to kill other people are probably (often) going to be destabilized by the experience. 2. When we go to war we must make sure the terrible price we will pay in our soldiers lives, in their mental health, in whatever killings and atrocities occur, is worth it- that we truly have a good reason, because war is so horrible, the alternative to it must surely be awful to start us down that path. Where the alternative was not horrendous enough, I think inevitable failures of will in the populace will surface- since war is a terrible thing people expect it to be used only in response to terrible things. I think that is a problem in this war. 3. Commenting on the atrocities of one's own side does not mean you minimize the atrocities of anyone else, it merely means you are concerned with keeping the humanity of your own side. Since much of the reason for this particular war depends on Bush's ideas of moral authority to go in and rearrange the country, losing the moral authority in dribs and drabs because of these sorts of events is a problem- and for the folks who say "Well the other side is worse"- that's not the point. The point is we held ourselves up as a beacon for morality and liberty- always a problem. It is always better to just have a normal reason for a war- a clear one, that doesn't involve subjective judgments on moral superiority. The invasion of one country by another, for example, gives one an excellent reason to go to war protecting national sovereignty (for example). And if there are atrocities as there always will be, at least you can point to a concrete credible reason that leaves no doubt as to why war was necessary.

To: Ilaine who wrote (22801)	7/5/2006 1:03:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541370

?? Also a series of bizarre disconnects. As I understand it, the argument is, "some Salafi Muslims, mostly Arabs, killed approximately 3,000 persons of all nationalities but mostly Americans on 9/11, and therefore we have carte blanche to kill any and all Muslims, whether Salafi, Sunni, Shia, or anything else, men, women, children, innocent and guilty without distinction, until we get tired of it, and not one minute before." What argument? Not one used by many people and really not one relevant to the subject which was the detainees at gitmo. Your post seems to be a bizarre disconnect.