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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (173798)	3/25/2003 2:51:14 PM
From: Charles Gryba	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I have to chime in here and say that I partially agree with tcmay. I think we 're all used to the current status of the USA as being a superpower and superpowers have to show force but that's not what tcmay is talking about. tcmay is saying that the constitution only gives the federal govt authority to send its citizens to war to defend the country directly NOT to defend economic/political interests of the country outside its borders. On the other hand, when a country has alliances the ally is considered part of the country so when your ally is attacked it's as if you're attacked and then you have to get involved. The question remains, do we need those alliances or do THEY need us? My point of view is that the current administration is trying to achieve something similar to PAX ROMANA and we all know how that turned out. C

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (173798)	3/25/2003 3:01:50 PM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 186894

Don't you think that many wars can be won with economics though If we can agree, Lizzie, perhaps there's hope for peace in the Middle East after all.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (173798)	3/25/2003 3:05:07 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Lizzie, <Don't you think that many wars can be won with economics though- and that means no bloodshed.> Perhaps, but remember that if "economic warfare" includes sanctions to punish rogue states, lives will be lost anyway due to those sanctions. Look at how long Iraqis have suffered under the double burden of sanctions and Saddam. Meanwhile, the free world became weary of keeping up the sanctions, and some corrupt interests violated them outright. I'd argue that continued sanctions would cost fifty times more Iraqi lives than the current war. Of course, no American lives would be sacrificed via economic sanctions, either, so that must also be accounted for. Tenchusatsu