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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (23895)	12/22/1998 12:57:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

There is much truth in what you say of course. It is all well and good to say the responsibility belongs to others and it is true. But none the less we have the power to end the suffering as well. Could you tell a starving child after the fact [after all he/she is already born ] that you have the power to end the suffering but since you are not the cause it is not your responsibility to do so? Remember Lorrie death is forever.[as far as we know ] O K we buy time by the bombing. What kind of policy is this? Buy time for what? Buy time so we can later buy more time? Are we really any better off than we were after the war? Lots of time has been bought but no positive results have been attained with all this time. Saddam still in power.Probably has lots of bad weapons. Where are we? pez

To: lorrie coey who wrote (23895)	12/22/1998 12:58:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

lorrie, I have to join pezz here in a gentle admonition. Saddam is by all indications mostly a secular tyrant, willing to use Islam when convenient, but mostly concerned with maintaining his power. There's no indication that he has particularly broad popular support, only the usual police state levers of power. I don't know what can be done, but starving the civilian population doesn't seem like the best solution.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (23895)	12/22/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

Another so-called intelligent remark by lorrie correy... Inspected for inaneness by # 43

To: lorrie coey who wrote (23895)	12/22/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<< My bottom line: If the Iraqi people really wanted to end the suffering of the children, they would stop making them...>>>> Or take the left wing lead of aborting them!

To: lorrie coey who wrote (23895)	12/22/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: lorrie coey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

To: lorrie coey From: pezz There is much truth in what you say of course. It is all well and good to say the responsibility belongs to others and it is true. But none the less we have the power to end the suffering as well. I disagree that "we" have the power to define how a political leader who has killed people for sport will treat children...I understand your intention and desire...but in reality, only sadman has control of Iraq. He has effectively neutered the male population with Islam and nerve gas. Could you tell a starving child after the fact [after all he/she is already born ] that you have the power to end the suffering but since you are not the cause it is not your responsibility to do so? Every day, all around the world...even here on our continent, in our Country, there are children starving to death, being beaten and raped...exploited and neglected...24/7. What makes people so sanctimonious when it comes to Iraqi children...to you I say charity begins at home. Remember Lorrie death is forever.[as far as we know ] That's a Classic...tell someone who's been in a coma what "death" IS...it's all relative. O K we buy time by the bombing. What kind of policy is this? Buy time for what? Buy time so we can later buy more time? Are we really any better off than we were after the war? Lots of time has been bought but no positive results have been attained with all this time. Saddam still in power.Probably has lots of bad weapons. Where are we? We're better off with the current policy than we would be otherwise. What would be best would be if sadman didn't feel he needed to produce poison for exterminating Humanity... lorrie From: Daniel lorrie, I have to join pezz here in a gentle admonition. Thank You, Your Honor... Saddam is by all indications mostly a secular tyrant, willing to use Islam when convenient, but mostly concerned with maintaining his power. There's no indication that he has particularly broad popular support, only the usual police state levers of power. I don't know what can be done, but starving the civilian population doesn't seem like the best solution. He loves this...his citizens suffer...he gets to watch and blame AmeriKa...we see them burning the US flag with a certain undescribable Glee...then a bunch of confused, guilt-laden babyboomers become Mother Theresas. Go then...feed the children. How much are you willing to donate $$$$ for the cause, hmm? From: Les Horowitz Another so-called intelligent remark by lorrie correy... Inspected for inaneness by # 43 From: BOB CHURCHILLM EST <<< My bottom line: If the Iraqi people really wanted to end the suffering of the children, they would stop making them...>>>> Or take the left wing lead of aborting them! ...Don't bother, They're here!