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: Elroy who wrote (209190)	11/26/2006 10:45:31 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sectarian hate is about as close to rabies as it gets- and we are putting people down for it. Yup. I like the analogy. You need to read it more closely. The analogy was to "the madness IN men", not exactly to people. I realize it requires a close reading, but you are just wrong about what I said. The analogy was about letting this madness in men- ethnic hate- run wild. Nuance. It's all about nuance. Bur since you don't understand your own posts, I can't possibly expect you to understand mine. I see that, and it's going to be a problem. Do I ignore Saddam's "intolerance". Nope. I've mentioned it several times. And do I think Colonials are to blame? You bet. Some of the worst ethnic violence and genocide in the present and in the past has been created as a remnant of colonialism- see Rwanda as one example, but India is certainly another. The violent interference in other cultures is not something I champion, nor can I or would I defend the colonial system. I think speeding up the "inevitable" means you know what the future would have been. Do you know what the future would have been? Saddam could quite easily have been replaced by another strong man- a military coup would have been my first guess, since I don't think Saddam's sons could have run Iraq, and a strong man would have kept a lid on civil war, just as Saddam did. It is possible that Iraq would have had a civil war, but it is not "inevitable"- and the US interference makes the US responsible. But it's especially stupid to intervene if you consider a civil war "inevitable", because that would mean you knew it was coming and purposefully interjected the US in to a civil war. Talk about dreadful international PR. Most people of your persuasion claim the civil war was unforeseeable; you apparently see it as "inevitable". I'm not sure how you reconcile that with interference in Iraq. Or maybe you were against interference? Or, alternately, you believe in interfering in civil wars?