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: Alighieri who wrote (223135)	3/9/2005 6:31:06 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572208

Re: .or else you have wild west diplomacy in which the strong rule. Which is precisely what Bush has today. If you'll read the National Security Strategy of the United States, you'll see that unilateral naked aggression is now national policy. As one anti-war protestor's sign said: "WHAT WAS A WAR CRIME IN 1945 IS U.S. POLICY TODAY" whitehouse.gov

To: Alighieri who wrote (223135)	3/10/2005 12:36:44 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572208

But the main issue is that I dont' subscribe to this notion that we can go around the world demanding that leaders we don't like step down. Fine, in general we agree. The difference (I think) is that in my opinion if a leader is for years or decades a complete disaster for his people, then we do have the obligation (for the people he is "leading") to force him to "step down". It's hardly a Wild West policy. It's a view that leaders are responsible for their actions, and if a leader's actions produces significant deterioration of their country's economy, a lower life expectancy for the citizens of the country, destruction of cities where restive minorities live, routine raping of young village girls, NK style gulags and a general lack of human rights for the civilian population, if this continues for years and decades, and the "leader" refuses all outside diplomatic pressures for reform, then the world is better off (in my never humble opinion) if this "leader" gets "regime changed".