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 : The Promises of GOD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J.T. who wrote (567)	4/9/2003 10:16:24 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 621

Obviously, I cannot argue with the elation that those people feel, but I say again: It is not the place of the US -- nor is it within the resources of the US to free everyone that lives under a repressive regime -- My earnest prayer is that this obtains the stated goals -- more security here, freedom for the Iraqi people and more stability for the region. It is exciting to think of them pulling down statues -- but we can by no means do this for everyone in the world and the challenge is what comes after. Time will tell, if this is to bring lasting peace or freedom to the Iraqi people or more security here. Perhaps oil will be cheaper for a season and the Saudis will be a little less blatant about exporting terrorism -- we shall see.

To: J.T. who wrote (567)	4/9/2003 10:34:12 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 621

>>The simple answer << Much of the "black and white" thinking about this matter, I regard as quite simple. We were given the primary justification as one of security for our nation -- that the Iraqi regime had WMD and not just WMD, but the intent and oppty to use such weapons against the US. I still see that as rather flimsy, but for the sake of argument -- let us suppose that it is true and such weapons and their means of delivery here have yet to be found. There are many more countries in the world that have weapons -- weapons can serve both defensive and agressive ends -- and weapons that are more sophisticated than a single shot rifle or bayonet, can usually be used to kill a number of people at once. There are many countries that have political systems other than democracies in place. Indeed there are all shades of gray from those who respect their citizens and their right to propery and the pursuit of liberty and those that do not support such freedoms or that wield "excessive control." The weapons of mass destruction used by the Saudis that flew those planes into the towers were only their own intellects and some box-cutters. It is wholly conceivable to me that there may be any number of similar low-tech means of killing many people if there are people diabolical enough to try it. Here's few questions that I have --- Which countries do and which countries don't have the "right" in our opinion to maintain WMDs to defend their countries? How do we assess whether or not they are a threat to us before they act?? Do we have the right to replace any regime in any country that we deem to be repressive or not democratic -- simply because we have the might to do it (or think we do)? To what extent does the federal government have the right to deprive me or someone else of property or liberty to achieve the above-mentioned goals or to build other nations in which they intervene? Can terrorism really be stamped out -- is it all organized activity?? If the Iraqi citizens are now free -- do you also regard the Afghanis as free or liberated as well?