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 (527)	9/5/1999 12:05:00 AM
From: Merritt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1449

Chalu2: <<Maybe it's time we reconsider who is actually "deserving" of our aid.>> That sounds good to me, but I don't think I'd care to find our country embroiled in what used to be Kurdistan. Iran, Iraq, and Turkey would all have a bone to pick, as I think they'd perceive our meddling as gnawing on their sovereign territory. Just think what a logistical nightmare we'd encounter. Too bad the Kurds didn't have any oil, maybe the powers that drew up the boundaries would have given them a country...they have more legitimacy than Kuwait, IMHO. << After all, Taiwan is all too ready to launch us toward Armageddon on their behalf,>> I can't blame the Taiwanese for wishing to retain their independence, and therefore enlisting any aid available. Now do we wish to honor our commitments, that's a different thing. If the U.S. should do so, I can't envision it bringing on Armageddon. Even without our participation, I doubt that the PRC would try and invade Taiwan...they have the numbers, but I don't see the delivery. It's questionable whether they could maintain air supremacy over the Straits, and without it, any invasion would be doomed. Taking Quemoy and Matsu would be a more logical, and face-saving move. One they could probably accomplish now that Clinton seems to have given a not-so-tacit OK. But even as an attorney, don't you think this has been a little too much of a diversion from the main thread...after all, you're not defending OJ.<g>