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: Bilow who wrote (56278)	11/8/2002 7:08:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

As far as I'm concerned, what you do on your own territory is generally "defensive", what you do on the other guy's territory is generally "offensive" Here I thought "offense" in sport or war meant taking ground from the opposition, and "defense" meant preventing the opposition from taking your ground, but now you correct me - if you classify the war as "defensive" or "civil", then one side or both cannot commit "offense" no matter how the front line moves! And I thought the Civil War had both offensive and defensive campaigns in it! How silly of me! The Yemeni campaign was a civil war in Yemen. Like the US civil war, both sides were therefore operating in the "defensive" mode [that is, on their "own" territory and in protection of their own land]. Oh really? Does that go for the Nasser's Egyptians who were fighting there too? They were the ones using the poison gas. Carl, you should write for the Onion. Are you really so incapable of admitting a mistake? And even if I accept these new-fangled definitions of "offensive" and "defensive", they hardly lend any evidence to the argument that CW is useless and Saddam doesn't care about it.