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: cnyndwllr who wrote (145326)	9/10/2004 1:16:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

If Mexico found a few Texans who were willing to do what they wanted, then sent materials, armaments and an army to back them up, would we say that we were the aggessers in trying to "liberate" Texas? The US government is the current government in Texas. You can argue that we were aggressors against Mexico in the past but if Mexico tried to take Texas now, with or without the help of "a few Texans who were willing to do what they wanted", Mexico would be the aggressor not the US. And I guess the Viet Cong Southerners were "traitors." It can reasonably be argued that those that where never loyal to the government in the South didn't betray anyone. Also those that infiltrated from the North were more aggressors then traitors. Those that where loyal to the government of the South and then switched to support the North could be called traitors. Tim