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: TimF who wrote (181392)	1/23/2004 12:49:07 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578033

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. Its been a country far longer than we have. That is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't much of a country at the time. Also we didn't try to impose a solution on the competing factions, it was more of a humanitarian mission. Excuse me......you of the "protect our sovereignty at almost any cost"......are you saying that because Lebanon was having a civil war, we could do whatever we wanted in that country? You didn't answer the question. How would you like if Iran came over here ostensibly to protect their ships? Iran would have every right to ensure passage of its ships through international waterways. If the US was trying to sink Iranian tankers or not allow there passage across the world Iran would have the right to forcibly resist even if they would not have the practical ability to do so. I would love to watch you scream if the Iranians ever tried to patrol the waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Iran was the aggressor in this situation. We were not violating their sovereignty or initiating the conflict with them. I see........we just happened to have our warships 7000 miles from the nearest coastline of the USA while the Iranians were in the Persian Gulf which borders their southwest coast............and they were the aggressors! No wonder you all worry so much about US sovereignty.....you don't respect anyone else's so why would you expect them to respect ours. "If defending someone against naked aggression is "imposing our politics and will", then there is nothing wrong with imposing our politics and will." No surprise there.......you come from the position that might makes right. There is no sense of morality. With that attitude, you better hope the US stays on top. No surprise there... you misunderstand or ignore what I say. I didn't say might makes right nor did I imply that might makes right. I said it was ok to defend other nations against naked aggression. Dang, do you not read what you post? You said there is nothing wrong with "imposing our politics and will" even though it might be a local dispute between countries in the Persian Gulf. That suggests we have the might to do it; hence, might makes right! ted