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.

Pastimes : The Truth about Waco -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (475)	9/4/1999 10:54:00 AM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

I do not accept the contention <<we must* fight and die for the Taiwanese.>>* Not unless our national interest is at stake an the objective defined. <<What do you think of these proposals?>> Certainly it is legitimate to expect quid pro quo for the US defense of any Taiwan or any nation, including Japan. Your suggestions are altruistic and benign at first glance; however, consider if you will -- 1) Do moneys paid to the US Treasury by Taiwan, essentially placed in escrow for war against the CPR, suggests expected aggression, thus defining a war contract that increases Taiwan's legitimate input into a "defensive-war" decision? 2) Agreed, Taiwan should contribute fighting troops for any action involving the defense of Taiwan; without question. It might also be reasonable to expect, without obligation to do so, assistance from Taiwan if a missile were launch by the CPR targeting the US or a significant natural national disaster were to occur within the US, for which they could provide assistance. 3) Due to the unseating of the Taiwanese government from the UN and their non participation in NATO it seems clear to me they have zero obligation to contribute to either effort. 4) Oh no, Taiwan should not contribute fighting troops to "every freedom-fighting action" perpetrated by the US unless they choose to do so out of self-interest. To expect any nation, particularly a smaller nation such as Taiwan, to expose themselves to worldwide hostility, at the whims of an incredible and usually irrational US foreign policy, is neither consistent with honor nor reality. a) The conscription of troops dates to the birth of our nation and is a topic that is exhumed from time to time. Individual freedom is the core issue. b) To expect any nation, including our own, to contribute troops for bogus actions - such as bombing aspirin factories or empty bunkers in Afghanistan - with neither national interest nor objective defined - serving only to divert public attention from matters of state like "Monica the Lips Lewinsky," is not only obscene but irrational. Let's recover the theme of this thread which is Waco - it is my contention that the Clinton administration has refined a pattern of diverting public attention (alluded to in transitional point 5 above), character assassination, and denying everything with knee-jerk regularity with a flagrant disregard or truth. In that spirit of true paranoia and cage rattling, I keep wondering if the current Waco investigation will have to be covered up by some other event, or is Waco actually a non-issue brought to the forefront to divert public attention from something else? It will be interesting to watch the pattern of public deception develop.