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: KonKilo who wrote (87925)	3/30/2003 12:40:15 PM
From: Sajjad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Shiloh, I agree with you. HOwever America cannot afford to walk into the same footsteps any more. US administration knows, and most of the public knows that staying there long term will be a disaster. In this time and age, given the geo-political framework of that part of the world, and the dangerous location of the premises, it will be tantamount to falling into a booby trap. Sajjad

To: KonKilo who wrote (87925)	3/30/2003 12:52:34 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The US is "in" (not occupying) most of those places you cite because of military bases. Didn't the Filipinos tell us to leave (at least one military base) and we did? Puerto Rico has had referendums on independence and so far, no. Rumsfeld has been making noises about moving at least some of the military presence out of Germany and S. Korea (which apparently did an about-face and said no no don't leave). We need military bases around the world, but that's a far cry from "occupying".