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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (80061)	5/17/2007 1:24:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I am saying that if the warmongers had their asses exposed to fire, at least they are entitled to say that we should stay in Iraq. And if they don't they are also entitled to say we should stay in Iraq. The idea that you have to personally be exposed to combat, or that at least your children have to exposed, in order to have a particular viewpoint on a foreign policy / war issue is not very sensible. Even if not being exposed to combat was somehow some sort of moral failing (and I'd say it isn't), that doesn't amount to an argument against support of the war. Ideas exist independently of their supporters. The idea isn't wrong just because something might be wrong about those who support it. That's why I say deal with the idea, not the person. If most supporters of the war where immoral hypocrites that wouldn't mean that the war was wrong or was a bad idea. If most supporters of the war where paragons of decency, honesty, and sensibility that wouldn't mean that the war was a good idea. Any statement about the supporters of the war, or about the opponents, is next to irrelevant to the issues like "Should we have invaded Iraq?" or the more important one "What should we do about Iraq now?".