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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (4657)	2/3/2001 8:46:20 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Losing that oil would have been bloody inconvenient, you know, and certainly we have the right to kill a load of people to avoid inconvenience. Yes, but not to kill a load of fetuses. Tim, I'm just teasing you. The set-up about killing and inconvenience was just to perfect to resist. Karen

To: Dayuhan who wrote (4657)	2/3/2001 9:34:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Why not? It was fought to advance an economic interest. Losing that oil would have been bloody inconvenient, you know, and certainly we have the right to kill a load of people to avoid inconvenience. If someone attacks some one else, you are justified in defending the person against the attack. (In general at least, you would get in a lot of trouble if you tried to defend a criminal from being arrested by cops). We defended Kuwait (not from being invaded but atleast from having to live under occupation) and defended Saudi Arabia from the threat of attack. Yes we had a self interest and yes we probably would not have acted without this self interest but the defense is justified and the self interest doesn't change that. If we had invaded a peaceful country to seize its oil it would not have been justified even if the self interest is the same. Tim

To: Dayuhan who wrote (4657)	2/3/2001 10:18:50 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

I agree. As an American led campaign is was not as clear cut as the jingoists would have us believe. This type of transgression needs to be initiated and maintained at an international level. The goal is to get the consensus of as many nations as possible. We had interests. We protected them. That is what big nations do, but they should do it as rarely as possible. It is simply hypocritical to say anything else than "The oil in the Persian gulf affects our economic interests and we're going to do something about instability there." At least that is honest. I don't really want to be freeing the "free" people of Kuwait. Generally, most people there weren't free before. Stopping the Iraqis from controlling the Persian Gulf makes sense.