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: gao seng who wrote (741)	9/6/1999 6:46:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1449

I thought I was clear on my reasons. But I don't think "deserve independence" is sufficient. The Kurds deserve independence, but the cost of our aiding in this effort would be too high. Atrocities? I think there is a point where atrocities may justify intervention provided again that the US is not risking nuclear annihilation to stem the atrocities. And even then it's hard to have a general policy on this--there are atrocities in Africa and Asia all the time. We could nothing but spend our time fighting atrocities. So, generally, I'd look for atrocities, plus some other important reason. Your third choice, which I understand to mean regional conflicts would be triggered that would be bad for America is in itself sufficient reason for intervention. I think a negative factor would be if the dispute has a "civil war" whiff to it--i.e., two groups of the same ethnic and language group fighting over who should control what territory. Those interventions always seem to turn out bad. Keep in mind, however, that I do not agree with you that an invasion of Taiwan would be followed by an invasion of Japan or any other country. If the PRC wanted to invade or attack Japan, they would not have to first invade or attack Taiwan.