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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (6803)	8/2/2007 3:03:08 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Re: "I guess since we don't effectively control either our northern or southern border...." Oral, you are clearly MISINTERPRETING what my words said. I didn't say ANYTHING about 'not controlling borders', I referred to not exerting governmental control over national 'TERRITORY': C) It is MY OPINION that any nation which does not effectively control parts of their territory (as Pakistan is always telling everyone who will listen that they 'have no control over', no 'government in place', 'no effective military presence' in the so-called 'TRIBAL REGIONS' of Pakistan) has abandoned any claim to sovereignty over said areas --- and therefore has not a leg to stand on if some other power is forced to act there. So... either Pakistan moves it's own military in and asserts control over (what it claims as it's 'own territory'), or others are justified to act. Message 23756617 Furthermore, I support the Bush Doctrine insofar as it asserts a national right to self-defense, and holding 'terrorist-sponsoring nations' liable for their actions.

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (6803)	8/2/2007 3:19:55 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Re: "...it's aok for someone to attack us also...." Well, to continue the analogy, say the Western third or so of our great nation was NOT UNDER THE CONTROL of our national government. They paid no taxes to the federal government, paid no customs duties when they traded across international boundaries, did NOT ALLOW any federal government officials or troops to be stationed there (in fact, attacked any who were sent in), and maintained that they were 'self-governing'... and the national government itself stated that it was an 'ungoverned region'. And, say this 'ungoverned region' this Western third of the continental USA, hosted a variety of terrorist groups who regularly attacked into Mexico and Canada... (and attacked international defense forces located in those countries that were trying to combat these terrorists who, say, used to rule in Mexico...) Then I believe that, YES, the affected nations would have a justified right of self-defense to attack these terrorist groups within the 'ungoverned region'. A nation is EITHER responsible for what goes on on it's territory... or it is not. (You can't have your cake and eat it TOO.)