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: GST who wrote (200494)	8/31/2006 10:47:03 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No -- not even close. We have a moral responsibility to intervene in cases of genocide and should have entered WWII for this reason rather than wait to be attacked. So Saddam was a mass murderer, he was committing genocide against the Kurds, yet you say we should not have gone in to Iraq, yet some claim we supplied the weapons. So where is your moral responsibility, to the Kurds and other Saddam killed or to stay out of iraq?

To: GST who wrote (200494)	8/31/2006 11:38:44 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No -- not even close. We have a moral responsibility to intervene in cases of genocide and should have entered WWII for this reason rather than wait to be attacked. But you all didn't want us to go into Iraq, even though there was an ongoing act of genocide being perpetrated against the Kurds and Shi'a by Saddam's government!! And Saddam invaded and brutalized Kuwait, and was planning on doing so again, given the chance. In addition he was involved with Al Qai'da, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and a whole plethora of terrorist groups... Here's a document that shows that Saddam was directing his IIS to hunt down Americans in Somalia, AND ELSEWHERE, back in 1993 (after his defeat in Kuwait). cnsnews.com Other parts of that document are found here: cnsnews.com According to JUST THAT ONE DOCUMENT, it appears like we had a "right, and indeed the responsibility to defend ourselves" from Saddam and his terrorist intentions. So WTF, GST.. why don't those facts make Iraq, as well as Lebanon, a "moral imperative"??!! And why didn't Clinton go into Ruwanda??!! And why are we in Sudan?!! Where's the rest of the world when it comes to reacting to these horrible situations?? And where were people like when it came to enforcing UNSC 1559? Had Hizbullah been disarmed in 2000, as the UNSC directed, none of this carnage would have transpired, now would it?? So you all have a lot of balls condemning the Israelis for lashing out against a group that people like you don't even consider a terrorist group, when the world couldn't even bring itself to prevent Hizbullah from becoming more powerful than the army of Lebanon. As always, folks like you are a day late and a dollar short when it comes to preventing the problems from occurring in the first place. And all you can do is btch and moan afterward when faced with the reality that war is a pretty Fckin' ugly beast. And when it's unleashed, it's damn hard to restrain, or contain, it. You don't seem to understand that the participants in a war have no interest in restraining themselves. Their whole strategy should be to unleash overwhelming firepower and domination over their enemy. They must act as ruthlessly as is necessary to destroy their enemy's will to resist. And guess what.. in WWII, we committed actions on a DAILY BASIS that you would construe as a "war crime". We bombed German and Japanese cities day and night. We destroyed their infrastructure, their bridges, their railroads, their chemical and petroleum industries, as well as their centers of communications. And when we ran out of targets, we just bombed their cities for the sheer shock effect for the purpose of breaking their will. Any wonder how many children and women died in these bombing raids, GST?? What about the unexploded bombs that continuing turn up during excavations in European cities? Were we to have to meet your criteria for being "responsible", we'd still be fighting WWII. We'd never have used nuclear weapons to force the surrender of Japan... And that means some 1 million American servicemen would have likely been killed or maimed trying to invade Japan. otherwise we are just monkeys with bigger clubs. Trying to civilize the conduct of war is like trying to civilize rape, or murder. It just can't be done. Once you unleash the "dogs of war", they don't go back in their cage easily and they generally leave a lot of "deposits" in their wake. So don't be naive. War is a mean and "ugly b*tch" and no amount of "charm school" or make-up is going to make her more attractive. Nor should anyone ever try. Hawk

To: GST who wrote (200494)	8/31/2006 11:55:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A few more points to ponder GST. IMO, the ULTIMATE WAR CRIME is when nations and government act to appease BLATANT AGGRESSION. To do everything to avoid confronting it to the point that the aggressors are so encouraged by your lack of will that an even larger war becomes unavoidable. When you enemy is able to predict and calculate your threshold of "pain", they will ALWAYS attempt to push that envelope to the point where you are forced to react. Were you to make the attempt and succeed in striking me GST, I would not respond proportionately. I would pummel you to the point where you would would have to be carried away. And were the situation reversed, I would expect you would do the same. And were you to attempt to harm my family, I also would not act proportionately. If there were no police to be found to act as "proxies" in preserving the security of my loved ones, I would take whatever steps I deemed necessary to prevent you from succeeding in threatening, or harming, those who I have a duty and obligation to protect. It's a cruel world and your rules of behavior mean very little if you're not willing, or lack the ability, to enforce them equally and fairly. Hawk