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: JohnM who wrote (48291)	9/30/2002 2:52:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

“You have become irrelevant, and unless you do something dramatic to raise your defense expenditure, this is the end. Do you think this became evident to the world when Europe couldn't even deal with Serbia and Kosovo?? Many see ‘tone of contempt’ in U.S. posture Is the US justified in expressing "contempt" towards the opinions of France and Russia, given the profits they derive from their association with Saddam?? “but perhaps it means we have a slightly more nuanced idea of how you deal with terrorism.” Or perhaps they care only so far as it doesn't impact their privileged economic interests? The US was the primary implementer of sanctions against S. Africa, preventing US companies from conducting trade with the apartheid government there. But that didn't prevent European companies from filling the void by permitting their own companies to conduct trade there. And isn't that effectively a similar situation we have with Saddam?? That they have their own contempt for political freedom in that nation?? European officials now concede that they were slow to recognize the depth of the wound and shock to Americans — and the degree to which Americans would take literally the concept of a war on terrorism. “For you, it’s not symbolic, it’s a real term,” one official said. “From that moment, you decided it’s your problem and you have to solve it and the rest of the world can either help, or, if not, to hell with them.” I hereby nominate and bestow upon that official a "Knack for the Obvious" award. Further contempt by European elitist leaders towards the suffering the US has endured as a result of 9/11?? I guess they never read Yamamoto... (Never awaken a sleeping dragon...) Contempt breeds even more contempt... Hawk

To: JohnM who wrote (48291)	9/30/2002 3:32:51 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

if it is all right for the United States to attack another country preemptively for supporting terrorism, he asked, then what is to prevent India from dropping a nuclear bomb on Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, in retaliation for Pakistani support for separatists in Kashmir? Let me count the ways - 1) Pakistan has nukes, too; 2) the winds will blow fallout back into India; 3) Kashmir isn't worth a nuclear war, otherwise they'd have had one already. But if the question is, why haven't Pakistan and India fought over Kashmir, the answer is -- they have. European officials now concede that they were slow to recognize the depth of the wound and shock to Americans — and the degree to which Americans would take literally the concept of a war on terrorism. “For you, it’s not symbolic, it’s a real term,” one official said. “From that moment, you decided it’s your problem and you have to solve it and the rest of the world can either help, or, if not, to hell with them.” Sounds like finally somebody is catching on.