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 : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9628)	7/26/2006 1:35:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

True. I think Saddam's dynasty would not have survived him, and the country would then have fallen in to the kind of civil war I believe we will see in the fullness of time. The bright spot (for us) is that we would not have wasted American lives and assets on the "quest". Ethical concerns about tyrants are (in general) silly. We love the tyrants that are with us, and hate the ones that aren't- and sometimes the same tyrant is involved. Since I think tyrantism is a bit too slippery, I'm more interested in American interests- and in this case I think they were pretty easy to assess, but obviously opinions will differ on that. I want what is best for this country, as I see it. Where America's interests divide from the interests of other countries (ethical or practical), I will go with our interests- as I see them. I may weigh interests differently- for example I may put a higher premium on the good will of the world than other people do, but in the end, I am weighing American interests first, and I'm not really worried about ethical considerations except as they play out in the court of world opinion (in our favor). I am a fan of Kissinger and realpolitik. That makes sense to me. Going off on crusades does not make sense to me- sum uncertain, expenditure fairly obvious; the equation does not work for me.