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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (180563)	1/16/2004 8:12:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577093

Please just agree with me when I am right instead of adding the word violently to change the original meaning of your previous post Your not right. It isn't imposing our will. We played a role in their civil war.....I don't care what word you use. What gave us the right to participate in another country's business? It wasn't much of a country at the time. It was violent near anarchy. We tried to save lives and keep everything from totally going down the tubes. And how would you feel about Iranian ships doing the same in the Gulf of Mexico? Iran was the one putting the ships we were protecting in danger in the first place. We had every right to keep Iran from impeding safe passage through the Persian Gulf. And how is that not imposing our politics and will? If defending someone against naked aggression is "imposing our politics and will", then there is nothing wrong with imposing our politics and will. Usually such a phrase would only be used for one initiating force or attempting conquest. If we were imposing our will by force then Kuwait was trying to impose its will by force when it shot back at the Iraqis. Should we consider their limited defense to be a negative or unjust act? Tim