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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (12690)	5/1/2001 2:41:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Actually I don't. If I got my way we would have intervened in Tibet but not in the Balkans. On a purely practical basis it would have been a lot harder to have intervened in Tibet. We could only have done so at the cost of a great loss of both Chinese and American lives. We could not have really defended Tibet (at least not without the enthusiastic support of India, time to build up and the willingness to fight for years with heavy losses in difficult terrain) we would instead have been attacking China which might have hurt a lot of Chinese but would have been unlikely to have stopped the invasion of Tibet without using nukes, or fully mobilizing and invadeing China. Either of those two alternatives might result in more deaths then the population of Tibet. Tim