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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (6210)	3/22/2003 3:40:44 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

I don't agree with all of it either, not even close. I do think that a system whereby we identify the degree to which a regime poses a danger to the rest of the world is evolving, announced only to a partial extent, before our eyes. The ingredients include: A dictatorship Completely unresponsive to its own people's wishes Treating its own people brutally Treating unprotected minorities brutally Seeking out weapons and engaging in activities which can cause harm to civilians (biotox, chemical, nuclear, or terrorist supporting activities fall into this category) Exhibiting a history of projecting violence and also emotional or psychological instability at the leadership level No real means for the population to rise up and deal with the situation effectively themselves If you look at the countries that exhibit all of those, I don't think there are very many, and most or all of those categories describe the world's troublemakers. If invading them makes their people better off and everyone else safer, then the only losers in the end are those who believe that "sovereignty" must never be violated for any reason. That notion is going to be under intense scrutiny and debate in the coming years, and the world may end up better off for it.