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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (250)	3/26/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: Stephen O	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Let me reply for him. Perhaps we have reached the point where we won't tolerate evil actions. Are you suggesting just because we haven't acted in the past we should not act now?.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (250)	3/26/1999 12:23:00 PM
From: Stormweaver	Respond to of 17770

BP, based on Brezinski's comments (Former NSA advisor) he commented on Tibet, Chenchnia (didn't spell that right), and Rawanda: Essentially he said NATO in-action in these scenarios was because of: (not that I agree with this)... 1. NATO force proximity. - NATO did not have forces/bases within a proxmity that would allow an attack for the above 2. Future consequences on NATO nations for inaction. - The above situations don't directly impact security or economics of of NATO nations 3. Consequences of involvement - of course in Tibet this would ignite a war with China. This still doesn't explain Cambodia and your other points.