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: epicure who wrote (109881)	8/4/2003 11:59:05 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, that is fine, but I am discussing whether there is a moral right to invade to stop that kind of barbarism, whether or not it has been previously invoked. Whether, as a prudential matter, we should undertake it is a separate question.

To: epicure who wrote (109881)	8/4/2003 5:32:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Other countries have killed millions of their own citizens (and I don't happen to think Iraq killed millions), and we never used that as a reason for invasion before. Don't you think we should have done something about it? And if we should have then, why should we not have done something about Iraq now? I swear, sometimes I hear the argument that of course we should act against genocidal dictators, so long as we have a Democratic administration and no national interests involved. If we have a Republican administration and/or national interests, we should sit on our hands, because it would be "hypocrisy" to act. And everyone knows that there is nothing worse than hypocrisy.