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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (109998)	8/4/2003 7:31:18 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And not just anyone else- we didn't even invade Iraq to remove Saddam. I was talking about the Kurds years ago. I talked about them on SI- guess what? No one cared. I'm so glad people care now, I really am- but I wish they cared in a way that would set decent precedents. Since we were willing to sit by when most of the big killing sprees went on (and in fact were selling Saddam weapons at the time) I don't see the harm in trying to get international support for our new found humanitarian mission. I'm not "complaining" because we never invaded anyone before now. I'm "complaining" because we don't seem to have a clear idea of why we invaded. Using humanitarian reasons as we are doing now, as a stop gap for the "real" reasons- that didn't pan out, doesn't have the moral weight that it might have had if we really had invaded for moral reasons. And of course, there is the international cooperation thing. I can't make that go away, for me. I do not think you can have one nation running around invading other nations in the interest of moral purity, or "human rights". Because I don't really trust our government to always be able to recognize humans, or their rights.