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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (4040)	2/26/2003 9:12:01 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Well, I'm not really sure why it would be any different if we embraced Saddam/Iraq in 2003?!? We embraced him throughout the 1980s when we could use him against the Iranians and buy his oil. He wasn't any nicer back then, yet we had no problem being allies with him. Where were our "principles" then?!? We installed and supported the brutal Shah or Iran to secure the flow of oil from Iran for decades. Not a very principled action IMO? I think the U.S. is an amoral country. We're not out to do bad in the world, but we're also not particularily concerned with doing good either. We're just interested in furthering our economic interests and amoral to how furthering those interests effects other peoples. Democracy and human rights are nice for our leaders to pay lip service to, but when money talks we have proven time and time again that we will hang up our suppossed "principles" and do deals with some pretty nasty and repressive regimes. I think we should avoid a war at all costs. That is what I want. Wars are bad things. Wars creat Timothy McVeighs and sniper nut cases. Wars kill a lot of innocent people and cause bad karma for decades between peoples. Saddam is contained. Let him wither away and die.