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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (106372)	7/18/2003 11:30:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If ethnic cleansing is an allowable reason, what's wrong with Iraq 2003? Ask the Kurds of Mosul if Saddam was still doing ethnic cleansing or not. Or I forgot - we didn't get TWO mother-may-I's from the UN, only ONE. There are those French oil interest to be protected. Ours may be too impure to ever qualify as a legitimate motive, but French interests are "multilateral". "Multilaterialism" seems to have replaced "transubstatiation" in Western Civ as conferring mysterious and sacramental purity on otherwise mundane objects. And I still notice that "national interest" is not allowed as a reason to start wars, and Gulf War I was nogood, according to you. So if we hadn't done Gulf War I, and Saddam was today ruling Kuwait and Arabia and a few other Gulfies with his tender mercy, having armed himself with nuclear weapons (remember the CIA was shocked to discover how close he was in 1991), that would be a preferable outcome to you? I guess so - our geopolitical situation might be stinko, but our "moral purity" would have been improved. Still cracked.