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: kumar who wrote (66641)	1/17/2003 9:30:25 PM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Kumar, When India is attacked by terrorists they strike back. When the UK was attacked by the IRA, they struck back. When Israel is attacked by terrorists they strike back. When the US is attacked we strike back. What's the diff?? Neither the Indians, English, Israeli's or Americans are wrong to avenge the murderous acts against their civilian populations. As far as evidence between Iraq and antiUS terror activity, it is widely reported that Iraq attempted to asassinate a former US president, there are strong links between Iraq and WTC attack I, and no one can deny that Iraq has links to terror organizations associated with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and that those groups have strong links with Al Quida. As for Iraqi desire or lack thereof for democracy, time will tell. I imagine that it was argued that Germany or Japan was not ready for democracy at the end of WWII. I support aggressive intervention in Iraq. I do not think we can afford to be Chamberlain-like with the weapons available to despots these days. bill@onenorthkoreaisenough.com

To: kumar who wrote (66641)	1/17/2003 10:02:00 PM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

9/11 : death count < 3000. I'm not minimizing the atrocity, trying to put it in perspective with events around the world. Where was the US sense of "we have a mandate to fix things our way" during these decades ? You keep missing that "post 9/11" in my replies, dont you? Besides, all of those others could be described as border disputes... NONE of which resulted in the MASS MURDER of AMERICANS (categorical imperative). I'm not minimizing the atrocity, trying to put it in perspective with events around the world. If it results in minimizing the event - why not admit it is minimizing the event? BTW, another fact of life (both pre and post 9/11) - just like Palestinians care more about Palestinian casualties and the French care more about massacres of the French etc... Americans* care more about the murder of Americans. *Most Americans anyway (just a general statement - not directed at you).

To: kumar who wrote (66641)	1/17/2003 11:00:58 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Where was the US sense of "we have a mandate to fix things our way"<< Be careful what you ask for. "Fixing" Kashmir isn't outside the realm of possibilities. My understanding is that if there were a completely free and fair referendum there, as to which country the majority of the Kashmiri residents wanted to belong to, Pakistan or India, Pakistan would win. After all, the majority population is Muslim. However, if the populace were given the opportunity, they'd rather be independent. Oddly enough (being sarcastic here) India doesn't want these issues to be resolved by referendum. Wonder why?