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: kumar who wrote (97203)	5/2/2003 6:58:14 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It was a quantitative question: less, more or equal? How was Saddam doing with the "Oil for Palaces" program? "WHO appointed US as "Guardian of the World"?"

To: kumar who wrote (97203)	5/2/2003 7:15:17 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Come on Kumar...you yourself have railed against inaction in Africa and other places where people are severely oppressed and are being butchered. Surely you saw some need for intervention in the ME. Surely you would not want the world to continue to stand idly by and watch the senseless slaughter. I believe Ghandi said words to the effect of...We cannot change the entire world in one day but we can change part of it everyday. Please keep in mind this armed struggle was brought to us. When the Kuwaitis asked for help...when the Saudis asked us to assist Kuwait...and after dozens of direct attacks against America. Should we have continued to do nothing? Should we have fired more cruise missiles against tents in the desert? After 9/11, we identified the perps...should we have demonstrated against them in Buffalo and Phoenix and asked them to please stop? Clearly decisive action was called for. Clearly it is still called for.

To: kumar who wrote (97203)	5/2/2003 11:12:59 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>WHO appointed US as "Guardian of the World" ?<< Preserving order is an essential function of the state. If other states are unwilling, or unable, to preserve order, and we can, then the question becomes, when and whether we should. Clearly we should do so when a compelling national interest is at stake, and we have always done so. Study the history of the US vs. the Barbary Pirates. In Iraq, most agree that compelling national interests were, and are, at stake. By defeating Iraq's government, we assumed the duty to act as Iraq's government until we can hand this duty over to a functioning Iraqi government. You may disagree, which is your right, but it seems to me to be a waste of time to keep retreading the same arguments.