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: Noel de Leon who wrote (67990)	1/23/2003 11:33:47 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Noel, Don't be so naive. Hungary, Poland, CSSR and East Germany were under the Soviet nuclear umbrella. Did you want to risk WW3 for this principle? As to Tibet - same with China. Where is the oil in Korea and Vietnam where over 100,000 US soldiers died? More recently - Somolia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti? Any oil? John

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (67990)	1/23/2003 11:51:39 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Noel, Give me one example where one nation state conquered another recently(in modern times). Iraqs Kuwait attack was a unique event that was an oil grab. We fought for the status quo ante. Your examples are poor. Tibet was a province of china and not in UN, however wrong the chinese action was. Who conquered cambodia? Are you talking about NV removing Pol Pot? Hungary was 1956 in the soviet sphere and US action would have meant world war. Czec same in 1968, Those states Noel were already effectively under soviet rule and anyway it was 40-50 years ago or so. Mike "Reasons for military action flow from WMDs which [would imo} give saddam control of the region(and its oil) and prevents the region from moving to moderation, economic progress and human freedom(and democracy when it applies)." Noel This is a smoke screen. Mike No it is not. Personally i would like bush to call for conservation and the democrats to allow for drilling in alaska if only to refute this "smoke screen for oil" argument that you continue to use erroneously. mike