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: Neocon who wrote (62162)	12/18/2002 12:54:51 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

you have now explicitly disclaimed a grandiose theory several times, so I must take you at your word...... I can't think of anything I've posted that would lead anyone to conclude that I was proposing a grandiose theory. I'm arrogant at times, but not that arrogant. am content to say that the original violence was more or less due to the causes you mention Take this as my last comment on the subject, which has been done to death. I would readily concede that once the conflict existed and the pattern of violent confrontation was established, they were distorted and redirected by the outside forces to which you've referred, to ends that had nothing to do with the welfare of the native populace. I have to ask this question, though: if there had been no conflict, and if that pattern of violent confrontation had not evolved, would it have been possible for these outside factors to attain the influence that they did? I can't answer a "what if" question, and neither can anyone else, but just because of the question, if not the answer, I think the earliest causes of the conflict are worth examining.