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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (131556)	9/20/2001 12:15:29 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 164684

>> False. America was barely 25 years old when it had already dispatched forces to Libya to combat pirates << pirates that were threatening our ships. far different than involving ourselves in disputes around the world that don't involve us directly. >> In 1812 the USA invaded Canada (then a British colony, and burned a government building in Toronto, leading to the latter burning of the soon-to-be-White House by British troops). << notice the article referred to actions by our govt. outside of our hemisphere. canada is not outside our hemisphere. >> Here's the rest of the "military actions" undertaken in the first 150 years of this country: Mexican War 1846, Japan 1853, Nicaragua 1855, Samoa 1889, Hawaii 1893, Spanish War 1898, China expedition 1900, Nicaragua 1909, Haiti 1915, Dominican Republican 1916, World War I 1914, Russian revolution 1918, Yangtze 1926. << i'm not going to take the time to respond to every single event you listed, but many of those occurred in our own hemisphere. the point of the article was military interventions outside our hemisphere that didn't have a direct bearing on the u.s. >> It is also quite a stretch to say that invading countries in Latin America piecemeal for the last 170 years is not interventionism simply because they happen to be in the same half of the world as the USA. << for one thing the article referred to the first 150 years in our nation's history, not the last 170. there is some overlap there. even though it's not my article to defend, if you get your hemisphere straight, and your dates straight, i will be happy to attempt to address specific examples.