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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (39372)	4/14/2004 11:13:21 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

Pre-emption is no more morally wrong than the government confiscating a crack house and selling it to someone who won't use it for a crack house, or removing abused children from a dysfunctional family, terminating their parental rights, and allowing a functional family to adopt them. Drastic situations call for drastic measures. You can't tell me that Saddam represented the will of the people of Iraq. He was a thug, running a thugocracy. A criminal, engaged in criminal acts. Throwing him out of power was as moral as throwing Hitler out of power, as moral as it would have been to throw Stalin out of power, and as moral as it would have been to throw Castro out of power, bad cess to us for not doing it. Well, we can't do everything, I guess. I can buy an argument about lack of jurisdiction, but not the argument that it's immoral. Standing by idly while someone is victimized before your very eyes, that's immoral.