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: epicure who wrote (216711)	2/6/2007 11:58:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not very interested in arguing about it. I don't see it going anywhere positive. Oh, horseshit. This is the ridiculous tactic you always take when you're backed into a corner and don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it. "Whine, whine, I don't have an answer, so I am going to take my ball and go home." Yeah, whatever. What's the point in even talking to someone who doesn't have the balls to support their point of view? That's lightweight crap.

To: epicure who wrote (216711)	2/7/2007 8:50:50 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"I support the rule of international law, even though that may occasionally give odd results." All right, apparently that means you think it would have been better for the genocidal violence in Cambodia, east Pakistan, and the Balkans to continue until a UN coalition dealt with the problems. Note: Just like the UN dealt with the Rwanda genocide. Of course, the UN was already in the Balkans where UN troops allowed thousands of civilians under their "protection" to be slaughtered. The wars I mentioned were real world examples that IMO showed the folly of your position on international law.