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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (557)	12/16/2002 12:57:33 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

>>You are practically OK with genocide. << Too funny. I can't decide whether you are distorting what I said in order to make a point, or whether you genuinely believe that the use of "overwhelming force" AKA nuclear weapons is genocide. >> I do not believe that is a real option that this administration is considering - it is a bluff.<< I think I'd call it a posture, rather than a bluff, but I think it's sincere.

To: zonder who wrote (557)	12/16/2002 1:10:30 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I don't know CobalBlue that well, and I suspect that you don't either. It appears from your posts that you are equating CobalBlue with the worst of the worst, i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot......that comparison just does not wash. In an earlier post I asked you how you would protect your community if it were being attacked. You basically answered with what you would NOT do, and that is understood. Now.................If your lovely beach in Monaco was bombed off the face of the earth while you happened to be in Asia, and you knew that all of your friends and family were dead. That the Monaco police department and the Army of Monaco didn't exist any more......would you rise up and do everything in your power to defend your community? If so, what would zonder do? What we are talking about are possibilities. I believe that CobaltBlue is referring to possibilities. You've turned the discussion of what ifs into something personal, and something that it is not. M

To: zonder who wrote (557)	12/16/2002 2:34:58 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 15987

Zonder, I have followed your exchange in those days and was under the impression that you were trying to frame CB, really, like putting words in her mouth. Now, out of ammos, you say that "she is practically OK with genocide... it is no better than Nazis etc". Those lines are beyond comment. If there was only one advice I can give you, it's to read her last thousand posts. Then you'll know.

To: zonder who wrote (557)	12/16/2002 3:26:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I do not believe that is a real option that this administration is considering - it is a bluff. I wouldn't perceive it as a "bluff".. Nor is it "evil".. It's just Machevellian pragmatism at work.. The last thing you want any opponent to know is just how far you are willing to escalate a situation.. Bluster is one thing, but one must be willing (and I think we are) to back it up with force... or at least be convincing enough that the enemy isn't willing to take the chance.... After all, in a life and death struggle, the survivors and winners write the history books. Hawk