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 (118663)	11/5/2003 6:42:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Are you saying "ends justify the means"? When the alternative of doing nothing portends greater loss of life (theirs and ours).. YES!! Kumar... on the basis of humanitarian concern alone (which the EU believed important in Bosnia/Kosovo), there was justification for intervening in Iraq and bringing down Saddam's regime.. After all, we brought down Milosevic's regime, didn't we? I don't see much difference between the two situation, except that France and Russia had considerable economic interests to protect involving Saddam's regime.. Did THEIR END GOAL justify their MEANS?? Bottom line.. war is war. It's ugly, chaotic, and innocents get caught in the middle.. The American revolution was just the same way.. people die on all sides. But the end goal is what's important; returning sovereignty in Iraq to A DULY ELECTED government, or at least a government with popular support across ethnic lines. And the fact that the US has sought UN participation in Iraq for the rebuilding of the country is FIRM EVIDENCE that the US has no design of occupying Iraq. Hawk