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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (211018)	11/8/2004 1:46:29 AM
From: beach_bum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572417

Mindmeld, "The combination of those two is reason enough for the U.S. to pull out all the stops to eliminate their capability to develop nuclear weapons." where does this all end ? You attack iraq, then iran accelerates their nuclear program. You attack iran, then syria joins in and so on and on. With every such incident, you are pushing more and more moderate muslims to extremism. "As far as the U.S. being the only country to have used the nuclear bomb, go reread your history books. We used it as a last resort and it ended WWII." That is not what my history book said. Mine said, the end of Hitler mostly came in the cold russian winter outside of Moscow, prior to atomic bombs. America was a late comer, but stayed mostly on the sidelines for most of the war. I also read the America used bombs as a last resort only in US history books. Mine said america had to respond to perl harbor and it did so by taking an excessive action (and then justified it). "The terrorists and Islamic clerics ruling Iran would think nothing of nuking Israel or the U.S., if they could get away with it. There is a very big difference between their ideology and ours, and frankly, I'm surprised anyone would defend the one over the other, unless that person was a Muslim." I have followed you posts closely on Cisco thread and find it very balanced and informative. However, I think, you have lost you perspective on this one. I hate to be here, trying to make a case for terrorists and Islamic clerics as much I would hate to make a case for Bush in an islamic counrty. But if you step away from this for a second and ask a question as to how these guys are getting support from hundreds of millions of other muslims, you will find that this conflict is deep rooted. It doesn't go away with Bin laden or Arafat or Khoemeni or Ghadafi. Of course, they will want to acquire nuclear bomb to make the playing field even. And sure, we dont want them to and keep the upper hand. But why single out the clerics, when we do the exact same thing in a different way. I am not a muslim. I have read about Muslim rulers who have overpowered kingdoms and forced the people of different faiths to convert. Those who resisted were slaughtered. After that came the British, French, Spaniards and Portugese, different religion, same agenda. Convert people to their faith. Start out to do business and wedge your way in. Send the missionaries in full force. The people converted by missionaries and 'traders/soldiers' resorted to bribing the kings, threats and finally systematic use of force and 'orderly' execution for those who didn't comply. The christians (american here) are seen with deep mistrust in many parts of the world (esp middle east) for a good reason. We are very good at rationalising our action (weather its wiping out american indians, or atomic bomb, or Iraqi civilians) and we put a very palatable label around it, that doesn't change the fact that we have killed as many or more people than them and taken away their precious resources and their pride. It does not, in any way, free them from the atrocitie they have committed. The war did not start with sept 11. It's just a day, we found out that the earlier conflict had never really ended - and both sides are responsible for it. BTW, no disrespect to either religion. they each have their strengths, just like any other religion. Bum.