Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis Message Board

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: skinowski who wrote (106041)	1/3/2010 2:23:32 PM
From: mishedlo	21 Recommendations Read Replies (6) of 116555

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Shedlock's perspective is completely nonsensical. I'd use a more pungent descriptor, but that would be impolite. What Shedlock is advocating is no more than a projection of his own policy preferences. Same for Michael Scheuer (and Pat Buchanan). Is it really logical to believe that Muslim extremists hate us because we have troops in Germany and Japan? Please. What a ridiculous counter-argument. Of course they do not care we have troops in Germany. But they do care we have troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Bin Laden's major beef with the US (and he said so himself), was we had "troops on sacred Arab soil". One has to have their head in the sand not to believe that. Now consider Pakistan. After 911, polls shows 90% of the population was sympathetic to the US. Now an overwhelming percentage of the population is sympathetic to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. What changed? That is easy 1) Stupid US invasion of Iraq 2) Drones accidentally blowing up innocent Pakistani citizens 3) US not going after Bin Laden but other nebulous goals to the point that it looks more like an oil grab than anything else Those are the simple irrefutable facts of the matter. Here is a simple question: Did the US make more enemies or fewer as a result of spending $trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan? One has to be nuts to think the answer is fewer. Here is a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein gwu.edu We supported Hussein on the misguided notion the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That worked out well didn't it? Our own CIA trained Bin Laden, meddling in the affairs of Afghanistan and Russia. How well did that turn out? The US supported a corrupt Shah of Iran. How well did that work out? The US invaded Iraq on trumped up charges of weapons of mass destruction. How well did that work out? Here is the answer to the latter: We took our eyes off Bin Laden, failed to find weapons in Iraq, changed Iraq from a secular leader to something that I can guarantee you will be closer to Iranian fundamentalism, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (some of whose families will want revenge), and now there are terrorists in Iraq when there essentially no terrorists before (Hussein neither liked nor supported Al Qaeda) In other words, every single major policy decision in the mid-east (those based on aggression or supporting corrupt regimes) has failed, and failed miserably. It would be hard to envision any plans of action that could possibly have failed more spectacularly. And now Trouble is brewing in Yemen. What are we supposed to do? Start a third war? A 4th in Pakistan? A 5th in Iran? Remember the results in Pakistan after 911. They went from supporting the US to supporting Bin Laden and the US is now flat broke. Bin Laden is a genius and we have our own CIA to thank. Mish

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next