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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3202)	8/26/1998 3:24:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

You miss my point entirely. Perhaps I didn't explain it to you more thoroughly. In the course of military action there have been few times in human history that civilian casualty has not been incurred. At some point every war brings its ravages to the shores of civilian contentment drowning it out in violence and bloodshed. To the victor belongs the option of either freeing or enslaving the populace of their enemy whichever the case may be as suits the situation. Most often the opposing militia retreats to the supposed safety and comfort of civilian confines and as such welcomes aggression within its walls. It is at this point the civilian population are given no less then three distinct choices, aid their brethren, to turn toward the enemy and seek mercy through collaboration or to urge immediate surrender. The only other option is to abandon the locale entirely. Should they decide to continue to aid their brethren they in effect become a component of the military operation and therefore an enemy themselves. At some critical juncture the military powers of the invading army must decide to continue their pursuit or turn back. When deciding upon the former it is implied without consent that civilian casualties will be incurred amongst the besieged. Therefore it is the duty, if not the responsibility, of the civilian leaders of the party being set upon to indeed urge their brothers in arms to surrender or turn against them in betrayal or else accept the impending onslaught that is to befall them. As has been stated the only other acceptable option is evacuation. Unfortunately, deciding to continue the fight, especially against insurmountable odds, beckons for destruction. It is all to easy to place the blame for civilian deaths at the feet of one's enemy but is it completely truthful? In so keeping should compassion and understanding of one's enemy blind you to their motives? Although some may not view it the most noble, nonetheless the more practical tact is to understand that when allying with your enemy, a civilian populace has a choice in their fate and upon accepting the choice to aid and abet at that point they do not warrant your compassion until the enemy is defeated. Translation: "If the Sudanese want to aid a terrorist who has not only killed innocent civilians himself but claims they are all targets then, no, I don't give a rat's ass about them."

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3202)	8/27/1998 1:26:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

I agree with most of your post.Perhaps because of the terrorists actions some of us ,myself included tend to look the other way when Arab lives are at risk.But having said that what would you do?You are President your intelligent agencies all say it is a chemical weapons factory.Do you do nothing because some civilian causalities may result.This is a judgement call and I think it is unfair to Clinton to say that he doesn't care because your call would be different.Remember that in Viet Nam the concept of sacrificing civilians was standard policy and done on a much larger scale pez