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: carranza2 who wrote (139295)	7/8/2004 11:20:01 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm sure they wouldn't agree with me. But are we deciding US foreign policy on that basis? Because if we are, we really ought to be in Africa. So, no, of course we don't care about mass graves, and rapes, and even cannibalism- what we care about is what is best for us globally- and I am speaking in those terms. Now you can get all emotional about Iraq, and pretend that what victims suffer is important to our country, but we both know that really isn't true. Victims are an afterthought at best. I can easily say a nasty regime might have been a good thing if it prevents worse things from happening. If Iraq becomes a real haven for anti-American terrorists, as it very well might, I would think that is a worse thing than Saddam. If that happens, will YOU think it is a worse thing? How about if Iraq fragments, and Turkey is drawn in- will that be a worse thing? Or what if it becomes a theocracy. Now you are comfortable dealing with ifs- what do you think of those ifs?