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: Keith Feral who wrote (168538)	8/9/2005 7:51:19 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Who says? Humans have a long history of imposing their religious values on other people. I have no idea where you think the "right" comes from that would prevent people from doing this. A country's people can agree not to do it, or they can agree to do it, either way, it's not a decision for outsiders to make, unless you want to throw out the notion that countries have any right to determine their own courses - and if you throw out that concept, you are on dangerous ground imo. If the people of the ME want a change, they can have a revolution. If they don't have one, then they don't want it yet. Imposing revolutions on other countries, to give them the rights you think they have a "right" to, seems like a very bad idea for wars. You've got to be kidding blaming the problems on the press. Unlike Vietnam you get none of the mangled bodies, or real time killing footage. The war coverage in this war has been execrable. It's mostly done by embedded reporters, who don't really report anything worthwhile. This war is continuing because it's usually a stupid idea to invade another country. Oddly enough resistance seems to develop when one country invades another one- whether you have good press coverage, or not.