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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (191181)	12/31/2006 8:46:29 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

I don't think it's very specious at all. < Saddam's "crimes" were not bad enough then to deny him support. Yet they have now become a hanging offence. Interesting indeed. > It does seem jolly poor form to be hob-nobbing with such a person, giving them support, while they are in the midst of doing carnage. How bad would a head of state need to be before one decided that one would not support him at all? I suppose the excuse was that he was the lesser of the evils between Iran and Iraq. But he was also a material opponent of Israel and I dare say was complicit in various attacks. You are quite right that it's only when they lose their power and status that their crimes are judged in a legal or lynch mob sense, but I don't see any reason why people can't judge them and act on that judgment any time. People with more than a little forethought would have opposed the Nazis long before they came rampaging through the front door, or side door. One doesn't need to wait until they are deposed. One can withdraw support anytime. It's also interesting that for all his crimes, he was tried for the equivalent of a parking ticket. Using the collateral damage argument, he could reasonably have argued that he didn't get any women or children, and he almost certainly got those involved with or supporting the attempted assassination. That's about what Israel and the USA do regularly. You know he's there in that bunch and if you blow up the lot, then you are bound to get him too, or most likely anyway - though Shock and Awe killed a lot more than Saddam and missed him. In a total war situation, killing a bunch of opposing men is quite common. It acts as a disincentive to the others to continue their opposition. Even in a non total war situation, such dissuasion is common. Lt Calley didn't even separate the women and children but didn't get a hang-man's noose. Weird eh? One can see why people around the world are cynical about the USA's great intentions. Yes, yes, it's just one individual and not government policy. But there always seem to be a lot of one individuals and I would not bet my life's savings that they are all, or even mostly, discovered. But it is USA government policy to forgive a far worse crime than Saddam's. Mqurice