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: marcos who wrote (161651)	5/10/2005 12:13:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

palestinians being as semitic as anybody else in their area, surely this is anti-semitic of you, as well as anti-chinese? So the Jews and the Palestinians are BOTH Semites? But, but, but, haven't you told us a million times that the Zionists were Europeans, nothing to do with Middle Eastern Semites? Now they're cousins. You're confusing us, marcos.

To: marcos who wrote (161651)	5/11/2005 6:05:12 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So according to you, zionists get the right of conquest, but chinese do not Anyone, IMO, gets the right of conquest when another nation launches an unprovoked attack upon them. Winner takes all, in that case.. Example.. Iraq attacked Kuwait.. Had Kuwait won that war, they would have been entitled to occupy Iraq, or at least the disputed territory that was one of the root causes of that war. Thus, the same applies to the West Bank.. Jordan launched an unprovoked attack, even after Israel made high-level communications asking King Hussein not to get involved in the squabble between the Israelis and Nasser.. Jordan simply had NO REASON to be involved in attacking Israel in 1967. So they paid the price for their own personal "mother of all miscalculations". If Tibet had launched and unprovoked all-out war upon China, THEN I would have little heart-burn with the Chinese occupying Tibet. But that's NOT what happened, now is it? And I feel the same way about an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. IF China attacks Taiwan for the purpose of forcible re-unification, then we MUST take action. The bottom line is that there HAS TO BE A PENALTY for one nation to launched unprovoked wars of aggression/extermination against their neighboring states. Incidents and minor provocations should be handled diplomatically. But naval blockades, or other large scale military attacks against a sovereign state are acts of war. We live in a world without effective global policing, or a statuatory international legal system that would state penalties for legal violations. No.. we have the law of the jungle on this planet, no matter how much you CHOOSE to ignore that fact. And that law, by instinct, states that if you attack me, I have the right to defend myself and deny you the ability to attack me in the future. And if that means occupying some of your territory, then so be it. Hawk