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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richnorth who wrote (83211)	3/13/2002 12:56:22 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 117072

You are,my friend, a bit right & more than a bit wrong. The reason citizens of the US are so angry is because there was no declared war & the first targeted were our brothers sisters mothers & fathers - true innocents - murdered in the name of unknown (& prior unspoken) "crimes against the followers of Islam". bin Laden claimed the reasons for his attacks of 9-11 against civilian US citizens were because(1st) US troops are stationed in Islamic Holy Land,(2nd) the US support of Israel, &(3rd) due to the contempt & support of the US for Moslems worldwide. bin Laden's single greatest complaint is against a US presence in "Islamic Holy Land". While Mecca & Medina are among the most holy of Islamic sites, the proximity to these sites by US troops is only with-in the most artificial manmade geographical boundaries. The areas inhabited by the SAUDI INVITED US battle encampments are far outside any traditional geographic lines containing the Islamic Holy sites! SAUDI INVITED! This is 1st & foremost an issue of internal Saudi politics into which the US has been drawn by by Saudi invitation. 2nd, Over the prior 8 year Presidential term, Clinton very nearly kissed the a$$ of Arrafatt(sp?) & that policy continues to this very day. 3rd. Bosnia. bin Laden & all who follow him are stark raving mad. They are international criminals of (perhaps) the worst sort. With me, with my President, with all rational Americans, from the very first day, this has NEVER been a war against Islam. Any insinuation to the contrary is simply false. While I've often been, wrongly, labeled a member of the extreme religious right, this is wrong. I only support their constitutional right - to be wrong in the same way, in the same way I support fundamental Moslems & those extremes of the Jewish faith & any other faith to follow their own wrong. path - Until it breaks the chosen the path of another. Truth is bin Laden has personal desires upon the Saudi throne. Should we have any involvement with that or any despotic government? No, but there is no way the US can or should stop the power of each and every Royal family world wide. Were the US to have such absolute omnipotent worldwide control, shouldn't we first depose the UK House of Lords & the Queen & her bastard spawn and instead "institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness?"* Is the Queen of England any different(under US & International law) from any Sheik of an Islamic land? How far removed are these figures from the Pope or H.H. 14th Dali Lama or Castro - excepting two claim power based on love & or a divine basis? * - Declaration of Independence law.ou.edu

To: Richnorth who wrote (83211)	3/13/2002 1:06:05 AM
From: ubetcha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 117072

"You are right! The American public was against the war in Vietnam! They didn't want their sons to die in the jungles over there. Protests after protests against the war were staged, and the north Vietnamese exploited this fact to the hilt when negotiations to end the war were held in Paris in the early 1970s." From this point on you are totally off base. It is clear that you really do not understand what really happened in Vietnam. "They were recruited from a bunch of spoiled kids" is not true. I have also read that "They were recruited from the poor, ill educated, and minority races" Also not true!! Let us just make up what sounds good to us and that makes our point. If the first statement had not been true, and the military been allowed to fight that war properly, it could have been WON!! Imagine that!! I do not really have the time to educate you, but I do think that it is time that you go back to the history books on this one. As for this "WAR" on terrorism, if we allow ourselves to second guess ourselves to death, it too can be lost. There are those who think that we should just live under the umbrella of terrorism, and quit getting mad at those who would kill us if only given a chance. They are just Arabs and/or Muslims after all, and mostly friendly. Let us all just get along. Terry

To: Richnorth who wrote (83211)	3/13/2002 7:11:03 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 117072

Richnorth - right on - very restrained in parts though, Gulf of Tonkin for instance. Unfortunately few people south of the border seem to realise that the ugly American is back, as epitomised by Runsfeld, Cheyney, Bush and the people behind them - bestriding and swaggering across the world like a colossus and garnering hatred and loathing by the minute. Where are all of the quiet Americans, where is the voice of reason these days? Thank God for the internet where one can read and realise that under all of this hysteria there are a few still voices of calm (and reason)

To: Richnorth who wrote (83211)	3/13/2002 2:08:36 PM
From: Ken Benes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 117072

An amazing amount of commentary from someone who has probably never set foot in Vietnam, certainly, not during any fighting. I voluntarily served in Vietnam, was from a professional family background, and regard much of what you say as inaccurate. It is unfortunate that so many influential people in power have such an apologist view of any dictator, despot, or terrorist that comes along. The acadamia/intellectual/left view of the world has never been able to confront a threat when it is staring them in the face. They have never grown from their infant pyschological stand of I am not ok, therefore the other guy is. When the fighting starts and the threats become reality they compete with the ostrich in burying their head in the sand. When the all clear signal rings, they are the first out with their rhetorical jibberish. It is unfortunate, however, it is the privilege afforded a democracy to allow its constituents to substitute Disney land for the real world. Ken

To: Richnorth who wrote (83211)	3/13/2002 10:23:29 PM
From: grusum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 117072

RN: "Kill all the scum bastards/cowards/slime by any means; G: Yes, by any means necessary. But use the means that is least dangerous to civilians in the appropriate areas. RN: They invade our country, they are our enemies, so show them no mercy; G: Well, more accurately they attacked our country, so yes, they are our enemies and please do show them no mercy. RN: Either you are with us or you are against us." G: I didn't say this. I believe that Bush was talking to Arab states that were sitting on the fence. He certainly wasn't talking to England or our other close allies. He wasn't talking about his own citizens or the citizens of Canada either, IMO. RN: How many people died in the twin towers? G: The number is largely irrelevant. Those in the WTC were innocent 'non-combatants' that were targeted by the enemy. It wasn't collateral damage, the Al-queda intended to kill our civilians. The example of Agent Orange that you gave is almost literally comparing 'oranges to apples', as the innocent civilians in Vietnam were not targeted with Agent Orange. The foliage that hid the enemy was the intended target. At that time no one knew the side effects that it would have. In other words, they were unintended victims. RN: Why is there overwhelming support for the war in Afghanistan? IMHO, it is because "they" are Muslims and folks in the West in the West are mostly Christians --- a sort of carry over from the days of the Crusades. No matter how much anyone would deny it, that is the bloody truth! G: Wrong. First, as a scientist, you should know that you can't state 'the' truth, just 'your' truth. Second, i don't believe that support for the war is because we are Christians and 'they' are Muslims ('they' are the Al-queda and other terrorists). Many in the USA aren't Christians, and i don't know or 'care' if the Al-queda are Muslims, Christians or any other religious sect. I believe that the reason for the support of the war is obvious. They attacked us, and we feel justified in defending ourselves by attacking them. Too bad if it offends some people's sensibilities. RN: Today we are exposed to so many frauds and deceptions that we have to be extremely critical and perspicaceous as to what to believe what we are told. G: I agree. RN: For example, a week ago the local news had it that about 400 American soldiers had to be withdrawn from the battle front because they had become battle-weary and need to be replaced with fresh troops and that hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were "body-slammed" and killed. Today, I read from a respectable non-American paper (quoting local Afghan military commanders) that the troops were withdrawn because they were unsuitable for fighting in that Afghan terrain, especially at this time of the year, that the troops' sense of self-preservation was more of a hindrance than a help, and that there was no evidence that hundreds of the enemy were slaughtered, as claimed. Could it be possible that the Pentagon feels, at times, duty-bound to slant reports or propagandize for the sake of maintaining high morale all around? G: Could be… It could also be that hundreds of the enemy were killed. Neither of us knows. And it doesn't make any difference anyway. You are talking about spin and other details. The issue is that we were attacked with the INTENT to kill innocent non-combatants. We were attacked. The question then was: what were we going to do about it? The answer that we 'defend ourselves' seems to be a no-brainer.