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: one_less who wrote (481730)	5/18/2009 2:23:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575193

Its a very serious question and plays to the role the US has taken on for itself; " Nope it was a facetious snipe. On the contrary, I wasn't joking nor sniping. You're being defensive. So......do you think we should invade Darfur next; then the Congo; followed by Burma?" The US military does not have unlimited resources, is not all powerful, is not a mercenary army for hire, nor is it a world police force. Then how do we determine which country to invade? "That means the very, very bad precedent set by invading Iraq must stop with Iraq." Except that I've never seen the invasion of Iraq as a precedent for invading every country that has a dictatorial leader. That's just you making stuff up about my view point. Thats why I labeled your question to be insincere and poorly presented in the first place. Look this is what you said at the beginning of this post exchange: "You seem to be saying the conditions under the sanctions were acceptable. I don't agree with that but it isn't a choice between accepting a regime of rule by drilling torture types, who intend to expand their influence over the world vs accepting the planned death of hundreds of thousands of innocents under the sanctions. There is another choice, which is to accept neither. This choice, however, requires one to take a noble stand." By implication, the "noble stand" is taking down a dictator. While that statement may have seemed all honorable and impressive when you typed it, its implications are significant and extensive. There are at least 10 Saddams in the world at the present time. Taking them out by military force is costly in terms of lives and money. You, yourself, have admitted we don't have the resources to deal with all the dictators in the world. In fact, we didn't have the resources to deal even with Saddam. And yet you sit here talking like a romance novelist...what a noble deed it is to take out a dictator. Please get serious. Iraq was a horrible mistake and all your romanticizing doesn't make it okay.