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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (416693)	9/12/2008 12:51:48 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578742

It is our business to avoid conflict, if we can I agree with that in principle...I see no evidence of any action to fulfill that principle. Al

To: Joe NYC who wrote (416693)	9/12/2008 12:58:57 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578742

>>> It is our business to avoid conflict, if we can. It is also in our interest to give (at minimum) moral support to weak countries that are bullied by stronger countries. That, BTW, is one of the reason why NATO was created. It is also important to remember that if you don't fight it, each act of aggression (a) further emboldens the aggressor, (b) rewards aggression instead of punishes for it, and (c) makes the next act of aggression easier. Like most problems, if you nip them in the bud, aggressive acts are manageable. As an example, imagine if Bush had not intervened when Saddam moved against Kuwait. Not only would Kuwait have been integrated into Iraq, the Saudis, at least, were very concerned that they would have been next. Looking at it now -- 18 years hence -- it is entirely possible Iraq would now encompass all of Kuwait and part or all of Saudi Arabia. With that wealth and power, Saddam would have been far more of a regional dictator.