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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (227028)	3/29/2005 11:08:24 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571612

>That's the problem with moral relativity. The circumstances define your morals. when i first read that i thought it said moron relativity.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (227028)	3/30/2005 8:48:01 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571612

Exactly, but it was still a "war of choice." We didn't wait for the world court to decide, and we didn't start w/ sanctions. Even then there was "collateral damage," while the enemy continued to brag about high morale even one week before we took Kabal. You are revising history. The US was very well supported by 1) direct ties between Afghanistan rulers and their guests, perpetrators of 9/11 and 2) the world community. Even today, there is never an issue of NATO pulling from Afhanistan. Furthermore, bush was very reluctant to enter Afghanistan, and for a long pre-amble period gave the Taliban lots of opportunities to turn over OBL and his co-cohorts. In the end, the war was very limited angagement for America, and it was largely fought by the northern alliance with arial support from us. Of course, all that would be thrown out the window if someone turned up a smoking gun connecting Saddam to 9/11. That would have been self defense. What's your point here? Al