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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (17492)	2/6/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, I answer Carroll's article: JON CARROLL Friday, February 6, 1998 The world is littered with heads of state who are not swell guys, and yet we fail to bomb them. The world is littered with governments that have ''weapons of mass destruction'' (a conveniently vague term that can mean whatever we want it to mean), and yet we fail to bomb them. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Weapons of mass destruction can be defined as thermo-nuclear weapons, nerve gas, bio-chemical agents and biological weapons. It is not a "vague term". --------------------------------------------------------------------- Most of Saddam's neighbors fit into that category. Israel has weapons of mass destruction and seems content to break its promises to the United Nations with cheerful vigor. But Israel is our friend. Turkey is butchering its Kurdish minority (indeed, the same people Saddam Hussein is murdering), plus torturing dissidents in its jails. But Turkey is also our friend. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Saddam's hero is Adolf Hitler - he has oil paintings of Hitler hanging in his palaces. Plus, Saddam has indicated more than once that he wants Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other UAE states. He believes they should not be sovereign countries, but under one heel - his - as Iraqi provinces. Does Jon Carroll ignore this as insignificant? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Then there's the kinder, gentler Iran, whose current rhetorical position is something like ''America is the great Satan, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.'' Iran has been funding terrorism for a few decades already, something the vile Saddam Hussein has not done. Yet it would be inconvenient for us to bomb Iran just now. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Iran is not as much a threat to its neighbors and US security as Iraq at the moment. Plus, Iran has not threatened to use weapons of mass destruction on its neighbors in a unilateral offensive attack. --------------------------------------------------------------------- NOT TO FORGET our beloved allies, the creepy monarchs of Saudi Arabia. Their internal policies make Iraq look like Sweden. But we love them like crazy, even though -- here's a neat twist -- they won't let us use their airfields for bombing missions against Iraq. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Why does Jon call them "creepy"? Because they're Moslem? --------------------------------------------------------------------- They're hoping for a diplomatic solution. Indeed, all sane people are hoping for a diplomatic solution, because who really wants death and destruction? Who really wants nice Iraqi lads killing nice American lassies? --------------------------------------------------------------------- All sane people hoped for a diplomatic solution with Hitler and Nazi Germany too. But there does come a time if a leader and his nation become an outlaw state that poses a real threat to the safety and stability of the rest of the world, that that leader and his followers be met with ultimatums - backed by force if necessary. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said, when once asked about US foreign policy, that we should ". . . walk softly, but carry a big stick". --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, all the old white guys who gravely shake their heads on national television and say war is inevitable -- they are apparently willing to accept death and destruction. Not their personal deaths, of course. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Emotional arguments. And why the "old white guys" phrase? What has race or age got to do within the context of a rational discourse about whether the use of force is a valid option or not? --------------------------------------------------------------------- So the next step up from an air war is a land war. A land war in the desert! Doesn't that sound like the modern equivalent of ''We'll be in Moscow by Christmas, don't you worry''? And we'll fight hand to hand all the way to Baghdad in order to topple Saddam Hussein. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Where was this guy during the Gulf War? What type of terrain does he think we fought that one on? It's the same land! Geez - was this guy snorting cocaine back then, or what? His memory ain't too good! --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Gulf War last time didn't actually do much, but everyone involved in it was damn popular. All those crispy bodies in the desert -- wasn't that a proud moment for Americans? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, it was a proud moment for Americans. The events unfolding then could have lead to a WWIII scenario within 24 months if we hadn't gotten involved. Plus we freed a sovereign nation that had been overrun by thugs, murderers and rapists. We were right on all counts: politically, morally and economically. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Analysis of Jon Carroll's skills: Writing: C+ Analysis: D Logic: F Cognition: D- Father Terrence