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: LindyBill who wrote (68819)	1/25/2003 10:10:50 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If someone wants to describe my position as "Right Wing" or "Pro-War" I don't consider it totally accurate, but I understand where the poster is coming from, and don't take offense at it. Hmm, I don't see much need for either label. Generally, it's not the term but the context in which the term is used, that's the problem. Your use in that particular post conveyed the message that critics of the Bush administration's Iraq plans were mindlessly so, mindlessly anti-war. The equivalent, of course, is to label supporters, mindlessly pro-war. Works both ways. As for how to label protest movements and participants, we've done this one to death. I've talked about the political tactics of labeling participants motives by the acts of some participants or organizers as only a political strategy. And an objectionable one. But when it is pointed out just who these people were, you holler, "McCarthyism! , instead of saying the people who showed up got suckered. Hmmmm. Seems to be exactly the problem I'm talking about.

To: LindyBill who wrote (68819)	1/25/2003 10:36:35 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>If a "Lets get Saddam now" rally turned out to be organized by a group of say, David Duke supporters, who were hiding behind a front group, you would get all bent out of shape about it, and say that people who went to it were supporting Hate. I would agree, and say that anyone who went should publicly reject to what happened, even if they believed in supporting the coming conflict.<< That's an excellent analogy, and undeniably true, imo (without singling out John in particular).

To: LindyBill who wrote (68819)	1/26/2003 2:55:03 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

A bit more at 0723 GMT: U.S. spy plane crashes in S. Korea Sunday, January 26, 2003 Posted: 2:23 AM EST (0723 GMT) cnn.com SEOUL, South Korea (Reuters) -- A U.S. U-2 spy plane crashed near the South Korean capital, Seoul, on Sunday, the South Korean defense ministry said. "The plane crashed at around 3:00 p.m. (0600 GMT) but details including casualties and the cause of the accident are not immediately available," a ministry spokesman said. South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the military plane crashed into a car repair shop and exploded, causing minor injuries to two people nearby. YTN television said one pilot was believed to have ejected before the crash. It was not known if anyone else was on board the plane. Korean Broadcasting System said the aircraft was believed to have taken off from a U.S. air base in Osan, not far from the crash site in Hwasong City, south of Seoul. About 37,000 U.S. troops are based in South Korea to provide defense against the communist North. Korea has been divided by the heavily fortified demilitarized zone since the 1950-53 Korean War.