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: combjelly who wrote (258915)	11/8/2005 7:55:12 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 1573215

I think we should end apartheid!

To: combjelly who wrote (258915)	11/8/2005 8:26:02 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1573215

Actually, I do. But not unilaterally or mostly unilaterally as in Iraq. Well how you going to do then it since you probably aren't going to convince 50% of the world's population (or whatever number you consider "unilateral") to spend the time and effort to liberate the Burmese, even though they clearly (IMO) should be. If the Burmese should be liberated by the tyrants that rule them and have denied their leadership (that won their democratic elections in 1990), any force that is strong enough to overthrow the Burmese dictators should do it. Liberating populations is something that smacks too closely of colonialism, which has a bad name these days. Possibly smacks of colonialism, but doesn't have to. It depends on the "execution" following the removal of the previous regime. This, of course, is the tricky part. If you ask me it should be one of the roles on the UN - rebuilding a failed (or hijacked) nation-state. The UN is multi-lateral, and are definitely (one would hope) going to leave the occupied country, so they would have less of the "smacks of colonialism" issues. Unfortunately, we only have the present day UN (which includes and therefore legitimizes plenty of tyrannical regimes), and not the preferable (albeit non-existant) United Democratic Nations. Personally I think if you believe a population merits liberation, then whoever has the power to liberate them should. What the liberator does post-conflict (as in post the fall of Saddam's regime) is the trickier part of the question.

To: combjelly who wrote (258915)	11/8/2005 9:41:29 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573215

Actually, I do. But not unilaterally or mostly unilaterally as in Iraq. Liberating populations is something that smacks too closely of colonialism, which has a bad name these days. My goodness, would you not make sure that ... 1. the reasons for the military action are stated truthfully to the nation? 2. that the nation has had a chance to have a debate about and express its support for the TRUE reasons of the military action? 3. that the nation understands the implications, accepts the risks, and even the possibility/consequences of failure? 4. that the planning is properly done, the cost stated (lives and treasure) and it is funded correctly? 5. that the majority of our allies are by our side and not at least openly opposing the military action? Elroy seems to want to cut to the chase, but it's not quite that simple, is it? I contend that Americans would NOT support the mission in Iraq if the points above are addressed correctly, before it's too late. Al