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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (88715)	4/1/2003 11:31:34 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Stealing vs. nationalization: Different words that, yes, can mean in practice the same action. <why should we not take the side of the companies whose assets have been seized without compensation?> I have no problem with the U.S. government doing this. But the U.S. response to an economic act by the Chilean government, should remain economic (and diplomatic and political, but not military). Reciprocity. So, for instance, if we don't buy the copper they produce, then their ownership of the mines is negated. Of course, this only works, if the other major copper-consuming nations go along with us in a boycott. So it behooves us to establish international rules, and the principle of multilateral action, and pay attention to the interests of those other nations. More reciprocity. We responded to an economic act, with a military act. The fact that the military act was done by proxy, changes nothing. We organized it, paid for it, trained them, instigated it, so we are responsible. We overthrew a government in a nation with a long democratic tradition, and supported a fascist repression that killed tens of thousands. All for the profits from copper mines.