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: Chas. who wrote (105600)	7/15/2003 4:00:34 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So you descend to ad hominem, and thusly demonstrate that we have pointed up tribal diversity in our species ... we, you and i, two fellow winspearians who have shared much common ground in the past, find ourselves in opposing camps - you jumping into the neocons' little With Us cage, and myself left outside, thrust outside that morning of 11 August 2001 So it goes .... let me leave you with the words of two generals, Navarre and Giap respectively, from early January of 1954, in a group of hills in the lands of the vietnamese - 'I only learned through my intelligence services gradually. When I occupied Dien Bien Phu I expected to have to deal with two divisions, then eventually two and a half, three .... ' 'We will take the french by the throat.'

To: Chas. who wrote (105600)	7/15/2003 4:28:14 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

That kind of talk is not appropriate here. I know rude talk like that passes for the status quo on the Bush thread- it should stay there. If Ken were here, I do not think he would allow that. Of course I could be wrong, and I hope Ken will be back very soon to let us all know what he would like to see here. No doubt he would like a great deal more substance.

To: Chas. who wrote (105600)	7/16/2003 1:43:22 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Chuck, I enjoyed reading your chat with Marcos. Readers see what we all rant about and decide who is making the better points and has the better ideas and information. Suggesting Marcos needs therapy shows more about you and your arguments than about Marcos. You lost the argument. The great thing about the USA is that the countervailing views very rapidly find political expression and elections are never far away, for either Congress, the Senate or Presidency. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court rides shotgun. Move too far away from what people in Peoria think and they soon yank the leash and call the MAD dog to heel. So, it was all gung ho for throwing out Saddam and getting rid of his noocular weapons and anthrax and stuff, not to mention his sidekick Osama. But when there's no Osama, no nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, not even programmes for weapons of mass destruction if the actual things can't be found and when sons and fathers and daughters are being killed for some obscure reason which seems not to be honest, the polls soon show a seismic shift. But I remain hopeful that the USA will get the UN going and sort Iraq out into a civilized basis. It will certainly have been a good warning to anyone thinking of harbouring terrorists, supplying money or munitions to suicide bombers at Hebrew University [which killed an American or a few of them] or otherwise causing mayhem. Saddam shouldn't have invaded Kuwait. Syria certainly got the message. North Korea will be sweating. As already suggested to you, there's no room in the WWKT [what would Ken think?] stream for personal pollution. Along with others who have been getting personally insulting lately, you should focus on the argument, not the person's personal defects, [as you see them anyway]. Mqurice