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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (125453)	3/2/2004 6:53:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

For some reason, Jacob, like many other left-wing pacifists, lays great stress on purity of intent and disinterestedness going into an affair. So what you're telling me is that they believe coffee and cocoa are worth invading for, but not oil? That is why the soi-disant champions of the oppressed ignore the polls coming out of Iraq, except for those anti-American sentiments they can pick out of them. Did anyone ever tell you that you have a knack for getting to the bottom line? Yeah... I think I've told that before... ;0) If anything, it is our job, IMO, to make these people think about the inconsistencies in their foreign policy beliefs. They can't denounce intervention in Iraq, which was justified by Iraq being in violation of 17 different BINDING UNSC resolutions, while supporting military intervention in the Balkans and Haiti.. Hawk

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (125453)	3/2/2004 7:01:12 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 281500

re: ChomSyndersky/"purity of motives" One wonders with "what" does he drive his car and heat his home? Railing against the Evil US Empire as he does, for our imperial thirst of the dreaded black oil beast, I should hope he does not use any fossil fuels. This loathsome US government (under which we merely exist) should never act within the interest of its citizens. It should never facilitate mutually beneficiary situations where one country might symbiotically improve its own lot if that country owns any of the dreaded Lustrious Lubricant. After all, we never simply buy the stuff, nor help develop industries within countries of supply. No, we simply steal it from unsuspecting rubes, thieving our way to world domination. Not so "United" as we are the "Odious" States of America, I suggest we all follow the lead of ChomSyndersky and not use any fossil fuels until November. Furthermore, we should also —— all of us, really, as we are all criminals of the world —— well, we should all renounce our citizenship from this repulsive republic of American SAE 20W-50 wicked Pennzoil abomination. He's gonna go first, right? Just to prove conviction and his pure intent 'gainst our vile Villainy of Viscosity?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (125453)	3/2/2004 9:59:00 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

"We haven't done too bad a job in Puerto Rico, maybe we could raise Haiti up to Puerto Rican standards, by about 2050, if we annex them now. You up for that? Me neither." I guess that you and Hawkmoon didn't catch this in Jacob's post.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (125453)	3/2/2004 5:39:23 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

Nadine, Hawk, and Bill: re Haiti: If you will take the time to actually read my recent posts on Haiti (they aren't long), you will see that I plainly oppose sending U.S. troops there: It's broken, it's been broken for 200 straight years, and the proper tool to fix it, is not the U.S. Marines. Message 19866048 I take this as proof, backed up by all evidence from this long and sordid history, that sending U.S. soldiers into Haiti never fixes anything. Message 19865812 What the three of you did, is, take one sentence from my post (out of context), then reverberate back and forth, attacking your Straw Man Fantasy Leftist.