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 (12375)	4/11/2003 4:49:08 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

As you have pointed out, US acts out of its own interests and that is the right thing to do. I would like to see how this applies to their unconditional support of the US at obvious cost to themselves. I can speculate about a number of different benefits. But I can't claim to know what the preceived benefit is, anymore than I can fathom the perceived benefit for supporting Egypt and Jordan and the Palestinians etc.....perhaps it is perceived that some balance of power in the region is good for business. You sound like my elementary school teacher trying to convince me of the existence of God :-) I wouldn't be the one trying to convince you of that. It was really my way of saying that just because you want something, doesn't mean you are going to get it the minute you ask for it. "Innocent until proven guilty" that isn't true in every country. As a matter of fact, I am almost certain that it isn't true in Iraq, so we didn't really violate any values there. So the US had to provide evidence for the existence of WMDs, ties to Al-Qaeda, etc. It is understandable that, given the absence of conclusive proof to support the US theories, most countries found it difficult to believe their allegations. The U.S. will have to provide evidence of WMDs if its credibility is to be maintained in the world community. I agree that this is reality, but to be honest, I disagree with it being needed for justification. As far as proof, there was some pretty good evidence given by Colin Powell, but that seems have been insufficient for many. "David" is improvising to be "Goliath". How? That should have been "beat", not "be". And the How? is by using terrorism as you pointed out. I understand. However, some of these "improvisations" include changes in acceptable behaviour As you pointed out, terrorism is an effective tool to be used against a superior power. It is unreasonable to expect the U.S. to use conventional methods to fight an unconventional attack. Unfortunately, this is going to bother a few people. Of course. But would you disagree? Just how would the "war against terrorism" succeed if the other countries do not cooperate in finding and giving up terrorists that may be holed up in their own territory? I'm not convinced that we are getting the cooperation anyway. And I am not convinced that the U.S. should beg countries join the war on terrorism. Much of Euroland seems to be contented with living with and appeasing terrorists. That's where I am, and I can assure you, there are no long bearded crazies around here :-) I knew that, that's why I used the example. Along with my experience a few years ago when I was in Nice and the Kosher Deli down the street was bombed. I'm guessing that it wasn't anglos that did the bombing. What was surprising to my delicate American sensibilities was the complete lack of concern by the locals.