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 (219749)	2/20/2007 10:41:28 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I understand you. And I'd also tend to be against pre-emptive wars to defend yourself from an imagined or unknown threat. The type of wars I'm in favor of ("Errr... Go war!!") are to remove a known danger from a populace that cannot, for whatever reason, remove it themselves. For example, I'd be in favor of forcibly removing the military regime in Myanmar that has denied the Burmese their choice to live under their elected leader, Aung Sung Kyi, or whatever her name is. They rule their population at the end of a gun barrel, so we might as well treat them the same way that they treat the people they rule over. And probably, the forced removal of the Burmese regime would be illegal. However, IF I could convince myself that more good than bad would come out of that action (by no means even close to certain, but IF) then the illegality of the action wouldn't deter me (much).