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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (39080)	8/21/2002 4:38:09 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Cadbury's apologise for Kashmir advert Cadbury's has apologised for an advert comparing a chocolate bar to Kashmir because it's too good to share. The state is disputed by India and Pakistan, and since 1989 more than 60,000 people have been killed as the countries claim the region in its entirety. Cadbury India launched the Temptation chocolate bar with the advert showing a map with Kashmir on it. The Daily Telegraph says the slogan read: "I'm good. I'm tempting. I'm too good to share. What am I? Cadbury's Temptations or Kashmir?" But following a number of complaints Cadbury India has apologised for the advert. A spokesman said it didn't intend to "offend the sentiments of the public". Hindu nationalists in the Bharatiya Janata Party, which heads India's coalition government, had threatened protests. Vinod Tawde, head of the party in Bombay, said: "Kashmir is a very sensitive issue. Thousands of soldiers have sacrificed their lives for it." A Cadbury Schweppes spokesman in London said: "From time to time, local management make mistakes. This was clearly one." ananova.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (39080)	8/21/2002 11:11:54 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

Hi Mq - There's a big difference between supporting people who say "we want to have our own country," and supporting people who say, "we want to have our own country that is a repressive dictatorship, perhaps a theocracy." In certain parts of the world, it seems inexorable that the first would lead to the second. I studied the history of Latin American revolutions in grad school, and the only answer we could come up with was that there was such a very old history of strong man rulers that people fell into this pattern as a matter of course. That was what the Norteamericanos thought. Almost all of the Latin Americanos thought it was because the US undermined democracy for nefarious purposes. That was 20 years ago. I doubt that the debate has advanced much further since then, if what I read on SI is representative. There are bright and shining moments, like Violeta Chamorro and Corazon Aquino and Benazir Bhutto, but they remain just moments.