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: jlallen who wrote (64871)	12/3/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: Alexander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well what do you know..I agree..We cannot police the entire world alone which is what has happened since WWI ;-(

To: jlallen who wrote (64871)	12/3/1999 9:31:00 AM
From: coug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

JLA, <<There's a tension inherent in this question>> Any question IMO, that is worth asking has "tension" in it.. That's only way we will get to the truth.. If we dance around an issue, we will be manipulated by people with an agenda. m

To: jlallen who wrote (64871)	12/3/1999 1:39:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

No flames here. I should remind you, however, that it was not until Pearl Harbor that the U.S entered WWII, despite what can easily be seen as a threat to this country's national security long before. The question of intervention on moral grounds is indeed fraught with tension. You have stated it well. I don't have an answer ready to hand and I doubt that anyone else does. At what point do atrocities demand intervention in defense of pure humanity? And if there is a point, what form should that intervention take and by whom should it be undertaken?