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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17366)	5/30/2005 8:36:43 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

It's all about weighing options, as far as I'm concerned. You see it as being only about removing "evil" regimes; I see it as opening the door for civil war, which will kill many more people than Saddam ever did. While I think your post attempts to paint the issue as a false dichotomy between opposing evil regimes or supporting them, I am sure there is more than just the evil of the regimes in question to consider when weighing actions in those regions. I find it pretty amazing that anyone could see it in such a simplistic way. But there you are. There is something in this world to amaze us all...

To: Brumar89 who wrote (17366)	5/30/2005 11:24:56 PM
From: tsigprofit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

1. It's not our place, and not our business. 2. The UN did not sanction our invading Iraq, so it is illegal. 3. We have killed over 20,000 Iraqi civilians, is it worth it to all of them and their families to get rid of Saddam. 4. We have now created more hatred for ourselves in the Muslim world - and created many more potential terrorists than we have gotten rid of. 5. 250 billion and counting - and we have no money to pay for it. Shall I go on? >> How people can convince themselves overthrowing homicidal tyrannical regimes is a bad thing is pretty amazing.