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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: technologiste who wrote (53689)	4/14/2003 3:36:18 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

"..liberating the Iraqi people and giving them a new chance to live in a nation that is truly sovereign. .." This is pure b.s. and you know it. This "reason" for invading Iraq developed after the invasion had begun (and no wmd's were located). BTW the original discussion had to do with "wars of liberation" in general, not Iraq in particular. "Governing with the consent of the people governed" sounds good. I'm sure it's quoted in some written form at the UN and spoken of quite often. Since you don't know how to define "consent" any better than Kofi Annan, maybe you should just accept the fact that all nations in the UN are considered sovereign by definition and leave it at that. The alternative is to have an ongoing, raging debate as to which countries in the world goven at the "consent" of those governed. As a matter of recent history, here in the USA, Mr. Bush lost the 2000 election by popular vote-count. Therefore he doesn't goven by "consent" of the majority of Americans. Right? Your back-loaded reasoning is not unusual for those of us who are trying to re-justify a conflict when the original justification has not held up to scrutiny.