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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (12352)	4/11/2003 3:43:39 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

>>Sure, but let us not forget that for the most part, those policies were their insistence of doing things by the book - as in, where is the proof, and no, "preemptive" invasion of a country that has never threatened you is not exactly self-defense, the only widely accepted excuse for war.<< this has been the previous advantage of the terrorist method of war....that being their belief that we had no real defense against their asymetrical attacks. after 9-11 we recognized that preemption will and must be considered and utilized if deemed necessary to our national security. the terrorist network was able to grow and flourish because of our reticence to not only go after the terrorists themselves, but also those countries which aid and abet and harbor them. so the rules of engagement have been rewritten. "Kill one, terrify a thousand." - Sun Tzu ("Art of War") now i wonder how many dead feyadeen litter the landscape in iraq. and who is more terrified. "The art of using troops is this: ......When ten to the enemy's one, surround him; ......When five times his strength, attack him; ......If double his strength, divide him; ......If equally matched you may engage him; ......If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing; ......And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him, ..........for a small force is but booty for one more powerful." - Sun Tzu ("Art Of War")

To: zonder who wrote (12352)	4/11/2003 3:53:12 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Of course. Would you like to explain how it is in the interests of the US to unconditionally support Israel in its occupation of Palestinian territories, knowing full well the kind of animosity it generates? Because it is the right thing to do. And the U.S. also provides a great deal of support to the Palestinians. And not only financial aid, but diplomatic aid. If you go back a year, you will find many examples of Arafat asking for, and getting U.S. help in dealing with Israel. While they bitch about our involvement, they also request it. I think that the U.S. should step out of the mix at this point. I think that the U.S. has basically enabled the Palestinian "bad behavior" by protecting them from having to be accountable for their actions. I would be that the Palestinians would beg for the U.S. to stay involved in their mess if the U.S. decided to stop supporting both Isreal and the Palestinians. Sure, but let us not forget that for the most part, those policies were their insistence of doing things by the book - as in, where is the proof, and no, "preemptive" invasion of a country that has never threatened you is not exactly self-defense, the only widely accepted excuse for war. Because you aren't aware of the evidence, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But more importantly, when you can explain satisfactorially why the UN didn't follow through on its responsibilities for 12 years of Iraq defying UN resolutions, I'll be able to respond a little more clearly. And you brought up terrorism being an effective strategy in a david and goliath conflict. "David" is improvising to be "Goliath". This requires "Goliath" to improvise as well, if he wants to survive. They have a point there, and I believe it would be in the interests of the US to seek a common ground with those allies. The focus should be on the "war against terrorism", and the US cannot do that alone. In your opinion, of course. I think we now know that there is very little common ground with a couple of countries who we considered our allies. I am a strong believer in not forcing oneself on another. France doesn't want to be friends with the U.S....not a problem. I am certain that their war on terrorism would equate to providing a villa on the Med for OBL and his pals. So I have very little interest in finding a common ground with them. As far as going it alone, I disagree. The U.S. has to be willing to do it alone. If others choose to assist, more power to them. More countries should be willing to solve their own problems without outside help. How is that? I don't understand the "proof" you are referring to. true, it is pure speculation on my part.