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: Ilaine who wrote (206106)	10/16/2006 5:59:45 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

I do not think we should invade other countries, except where they have been aggressors on their neighbors, or there is unified international agreement among the world powers that something must be done. I never would say never, because there are always unusual situations. Iraq was not one of those. I would not call the assistance of the French to the colonists an "invasion" akin to Iraq. Not only is it "not exactly similar, it isn't similar at all, imo. If the French had not helped us, I wouldn't mind a bit. The world would have spun on anyway, even if we hadn't had a revolution, and things might have turned out better without one- who can say? I'm not that in love with revolutions and civil wars- not even the ones of my own country. Our own country might exist anyway, even without the French, one can't really be certain about that either.

To: Ilaine who wrote (206106)	10/17/2006 4:20:41 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cobalt, regarding the American Revolution your post stated; "Your argument, as I understand it, is that we should not intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, period. And I am pointing out that our own country would not exist if all other countries had adhered to your rule." What do you think the history would have been if the British had defeated Washington's forces and "won" the war? Would the resentments that motivated the colonists to rebel have evaporated? Would the great ideas and passions of the founding fathers have been forgotten, abandoned, or diminished? Would Britain have been able to maintain an occupying force sufficient to suppress the people of the colonies for months, years, or decades? Or would the colonists have sabotaged the British at every turn and made them eager to just get the hell out? (By the way, most occupying forces label such tactics with the term, terrorism.) The fact is that British rule of the American Colonies was doomed regardless of whether it won the "war" or "lost" it. The only way the British could have continued to hold the colony was for it to accede to the demands of the colonists. If it had, the British would have ruled the colony in name only. Which brings us to your ill considered, almost Pavlovian, support of the war in Iraq. Do you really THINK we can "win" there? The fact is that those of you who have supported the war from the beginning have been proven wrong over and over again. You've been proven wrong about the details and, more importantly, you've been proven drastically, horribly wrong about the trend. What is it that you've been overlooking? Could it be that you failed to understand the culture, the passions and the history of Iraq, or is it that you fail to understand human nature and the immense aggregate power of individuals determined to exercise THEIR own will? Some of you have learned to question the underlying assumptions upon which your "remake Iraq" crusade was based, some of you haven't. But you will. When our young are dying then without question, over the long term, reality will prove impossible to spin . Ed