Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (180781)	1/22/2004 4:50:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1578120

Had I not been right you wouldn't have had to stick in the word, violently, in your rewrite of your original post. Posting with you has become a pssing contest as opposed to getting at the truth.* Without the "violently" you don't get much of an imposition of our will. Having bases in other countries isn't imposing our will violently or otherwise. Also the "violently imposing our will" came in response to your mentioning our bases in these countries which was in turn a response to my comment "As for imposing our politics on the region - Certainly we have been involved in the region but outside of Iraq we haven't been that forceful about it." Sorry if changing "forceful" to "violently" upsets you that much. OK change my comment to "None of which is an example of forcefully imposing our politics or policies." Does that make you happier. It wasn't much of a country at the time. It was violent near anarchy. We tried to save lives and keep everything from totally going down the tubes. Its been a country far longer than we have. That is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't much of a country at the time. Also we didn't try to impose a solution on the competing factions, it was more of a humanitarian mission. You didn't answer the question. How would you like if Iran came over here ostensibly to protect their ships? Iran would have every right to ensure passage of its ships through international waterways. If the US was trying to sink Iranian tankers or not allow there passage across the world Iran would have the right to forcibly resist even if they would not have the practical ability to do so. Iran was the aggressor in this situation. We were not violating their sovereignty or initiating the conflict with them. "If defending someone against naked aggression is "imposing our politics and will", then there is nothing wrong with imposing our politics and will." No surprise there.......you come from the position that might makes right. There is no sense of morality. With that attitude, you better hope the US stays on top. No surprise there... you misunderstand or ignore what I say. I didn't say might makes right nor did I imply that might makes right. I said it was ok to defend other nations against naked aggression. "Usually such a phrase would only be used for one initiating force or attempting conquest. If we were imposing our will by force then Kuwait was trying to impose its will by force when it shot back at the Iraqis. Should we consider their limited defense to be a negative or unjust act?" There is nothing analogous in the comparison. The analogy is very strong. Just as a person or nation has a right to defend themselves against aggression, they also have a right to defend others. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next