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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (46126)	5/21/2004 2:05:23 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793970

Not always--think post war germany and japan who within a few years were prospering with US help, just a few years after being nuked and firebombed. MIke

To: Ilaine who wrote (46126)	5/21/2004 2:07:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

Lots of 'third parties' have always become collateral damage in wars. In WWII, they were directly targeted. Looking at the history of war, you can hardly make such a rule about third parties. In fact, you can argue that the victors generally are focused on getting their enemies, without caring overmuch who got in the way. But none of this has anything to do with my main point: that anti-terrorist wars are dirty wars, even for disciplined and restrained troops who do NOT act for vengeage, who do NOT go around targeting third parties, who DO remain focused on doing what they must to defeat their enemy.