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: carranza2 who wrote (135999)	6/8/2004 6:10:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for the riposte C2. I admit to bear-baiting. I didn't mean Osama [that's how we spell it in English - Americans use their own spelling, 2,440,000 Google hits can't be wrong google.com ] and the USA have all sorts of things in common. I meant in the dislike of the UN. Many USA people vehemently say to ditch the thing. So does Osama. It is significant agreement to be in favour of ditching the UN and going with the dog eat dog model. Hundreds of millions of people have died over the last century because of dog eat dog conflict. That's why the UN was formed - do a "scourge of war" Google search and I bet that leads you to the UN. In our daily lives, the UN might seem irrelevant, but when the Twin Towers are crashing or other big things happen as they do from time to time, we are reminded of the importance of civilization and means other than killing each other to find a way of resolving conflict and progressing. I know the USA political system is still in favour of the UN [half-heartedly] but plenty of Americans are not, including right here in SI. You are right though, that the UN needs a rebore. It is inadequate in its current form. It was the way forward today, with the USA keen to have the UN involved. Now the rest of the world is being called to arms to support the UN decision. Mqurice

To: carranza2 who wrote (135999)	6/8/2004 6:11:44 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is no comparison. Maybe you're trying too hard to find differences. If you looked for similarities I bet you could find a couple. Hints: Both are trying to impose their view of how the Gulf States should be governed. Both are trying to use force to accomplish their goals. Both are willing to sacrifice the lives of others, including innocent civilian lives, in order to achieve their goals. Both feel morally and religiously justified in pursuing their goals. Both feel the other is a force of evil and oppression. Both claim the other side is led by cowards although Osama actually risks his life more directly than those who make the policy decisions for America. Both, contrary to what you claim, like to attack from the blind side. Both seem to agree that the ends justify the means in most cases. I imagine there are a few other similarities.