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 (23201)	7/7/2006 3:36:31 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 543686

38 now. I don't remember Vietnam (although I know at least one person younger than I am who does, and I have some memories from the time if not about the war), but I know a lot about it. In any case pointing to my age doesn't answer the question so I'll repeat it - Who exactly is the "they" you are talking about? There certainly where people who "didn't care about the well being of our South Vietnamese allies any more than they cared about the North Vietnamese." But the group of people who felt that way is not identical to the group of people who supported the war, or the group who blamed the media for losing the war. If you haven't come across people arguing that 9/11 excuses mistreating Iraqis, good for you. I don't deny that some people do make such justifications, I imagine some people probably do, in fact I think I may have heard or read one or two myself. But such statements are not common and for the most part are not from people with a lot of influence. In general they aren't significant. Its like holocaust denial, yes some people do it but its rare in most contexts and usually has no real impact. They also argue, by the way, that it's OK for Americans to mistreat Iraqis because Al Qaeda in Iraq does bad things to Americans like torture and beheadings. Again very few say that. A much greater number might complain about all the attention paid to a few cases of American atrocities compared to the much greater number of atrocities committed by our enemy but that isn't the same thing as saying its ok to commit such atrocities. Edit - I see you said "mistreat Iraqis" not commit atrocities against them. You might get some level of support for that because "mistreat" is much less specific, and often doesn't mean something as bad as "commit an atrocity against". Some might only say that we are mistreating Iraqis if we commit some atrocity or at least something that approaches being an atrocity. Others would call the normal operation of a war in their country, with things like armed checkpoints, collateral damage, house to house searches, and such "mistreatment". If you take the most extreme version of what "mistreat" might mean, than I stand by my assertion that there are very few who would make the justification you posted about (that it's OK for Americans to mistreat Iraqis because Al Qaeda in Iraq does bad things to Americans like torture and be-headings). I would disagree with calling the more mild and acceptable actions "mistreatment". If you are using some definition in them middle, it might help if you where more specific about it.