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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (159918)	1/20/2004 10:07:20 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

In Yugoslavia we intervened in a civil war. We "unilaterally attacked" a nation that was not threatening us in any way. We did it to stop a murderous tyrant from killing more Bosnian Muslims and Albanian Kosovars. In Afghanistan we responded to an attack on the US. We "unilaterally attacked" and overthrew the Taliban not because they attacked us or were an "imminent threat", but because they harbored terrorists who attacked us and were a threat. Only in Iraq did we invade just because we felt like it. We took down Saddam 1) because we, our allies and the UN all said he had WMDs and was not complying with a long string of UN resolutions regarding them; 2) because his government harbored and supported terrorists who were a threat to us and our allies; 3) because his government terrorized and murdered its own citizens; 4) because his government made aggressive war on its neighbors and never complied with cease-fire conditions he agreed to after being repelled from Kuwait (i.e. that war never ended); and 5) because giving the Iraqi people a shot at building a democratic nation is in their interest, our interest, the region's interest and the world's interest from the perspectives of security, economics and humanitarianism. If you think a stamp of approval from the UN security council is the path to "legitimacy", then you are arguing that our foreign policy should be subject to approval of Saddam Hussein's top political ally and defender, and largest (by far) arms suppliers. And you must think a body that repeatedly fails to enforce its own resolutions and is subject to the whim of a national leader who promised to veto ANY resolution that would hold Saddam Hussein to account for his repeated violations of previous resolutions is, nonetheless, a "legitimate" body capable of fair and objective judgement. In short, you are a fool.