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 (229191)	5/1/2007 12:25:45 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am for global activism where humanitarian concerns and US interests work together. So I was for the Serbian intervention (because we have interests in Europe, and the EU had obviously demonstrated its inability to stop slaughter even on its own doorstep), Afghanistan, and Iraq. The Iraq argument for me was always geopolitical. Either we forced Saddam to back down or be toppled, or the US would climb down and Saddam would rule the Arab league, free of sanctions which were obviously crumbling (now we know why). I didn't want to see the latter option. Saddam free of sanctions with all his oil billions would soon be armed to the teeth again and ready to invade somebody. It was just the way he operated. The Arab League would kowtow to him, so kiss goodbye any chance for Middle East reform there. I wasn't for direct US intervention in Rwanda or Darfur - not enough US interests. I would support US backing for a UN mission with some teeth but I don't think the UN is capable. All you have to do is kill a couple of UN guys, and the rest run away.