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: Maurice Winn who wrote (191999)	1/7/2007 4:07:07 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793963

Mq - So many non-sequiturs - so little time to respond. Victor's justice. I guess it was victor's justice in WWII also with Adolf and buddies. Does that mean it shouldn't happen? So your point is really that Calley is equivalent to Saddam and there is an inconsistency there? Interesting sophistry it seems to me. Do really want to debate that one? They are so different - and the comparisons aren't that interesting to me. Personally, I think we are putting too much oversite on our soldiers in Iraq rather than too little. We are essentially asking our soldiers to take extra risks while they are being shot at from buildings. They aren't allowed to respond to fire until they identify the person who is shooting even if they see fire coming from a building. The result is more deaths and injuries among the soldiers. There are always two types of errors, Type A and Type B. You seem to want to set one to zero and allow many of the other. Type A being innocent Iraqi citizens killed in the line of fire, Type B being soldiers killed. What is right? Obviously somewhere in between. Keep in mind that the situation in which Saddam was living was a far different scene from the considered habeas corpus multiple court case legal realm of the politically stable developed world. It was and still is a do or die, all-or-nothing, our tribe or theirs, conflict for dominance. I think what you are saying is that Saddam had a free license to kill the populations of Iraq that disagreed with him. Interesting argument. Many leaders would like to do that - not all go that far thankfully. As you can see from the current carnage, it wasn't Saddam who set the rules. Osama's attack on the Twin Towers wasn't decided by Saddam. It's the way it works there. Saddam was just the best at using the rules of the region in getting and keeping power. That is, until April Glaspie led him astray into thinking that the USA wouldn't dabble in the area to his disadvantage. Ooops. It all went badly wrong from then on. I love this one. So it was a blissful little world of dog eat dog and only when big bad Angel Gillespie allegedly winked and nodded at Iraq that the US might not do anything to interfere with the region did Saddam become an INTERNATIONAL THREAT besides just being a nice old gendercidal gendocidal DOMESTIC MASS MURDERER. So as usual all problems in the world come back to the US. You are slipping here, you forgot to mention that the US helped Saddam in the fight against Iraq. Oil profits in the 1990s were great. And still are. Having such a LOT of oil off the market did NOT hurt export prices from other areas. Then this last canard. In case you haven't noticed, the US is an oil IMPORTER so it doesn't benefit from higher oil prices. I guess you are saying that since your old employer benefited then it was all for UGLY PROFITS at BIG OIL. Surprised to hear you take this line.