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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack -- A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (37834)	12/11/2000 4:54:14 AM
From: DukeCrow	Respond to of 42787

As to Bush Sr. I respectfully disagree, his hands are tainted with blood, he encouraged and then abandoned the Curds in Iraq and other opposition parties in and outside Iraq for personal glory and the interest of his supporters big oil companies who won big concession after Desert Storm. Totally agree. Let's add to that the fact that he lied to the American people. Read my lips... I wonder whether if Bush had spoken those words under oath the Republicans would have called for his impeachment ;) Ali

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (37834)	12/11/2000 5:22:15 AM
From: JRI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42787

OT Haim, although I agree that Bush, Sr. did not go far enough in the war with Iraq, one must recognize the multiple horrible experiences America has had in supporting all sorts of small (sometimes radical) opposition groups in challenging political situations. As many times as not, America has supported so-called "freedom fighters", "democrats", etc...only to turn around, and see these groups, once in power, become as bad (or worse) then the previous powers ("devil you know" theory)....Often, America is put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation...the same groups (read here European governments) who bitch and moan about America's interventionist policies, and America's "power hungry/ignorance of the world" mentality also do a HORRIBLE job cleaning up the smallest of messes in THEIR backyards (read here: Bosnia, former African colonies, etc.). Sure, who wants a world policeman? No one. But there will always be the "grade school bullies" like Hussein, Milosevic who will continue to pull their crap until, unfortunately, someone bigger and stronger has to put them in their place. Usually, America is the big (actually only) kid of the last resort. But I have to tell you, I usually find the (collective) European response (ex-England) appaling to say the least. They (continental Europeans) are frequently unable to take a stand ON ANYTHING politically, and they let guys like Milosevic get so powerful, that it indeed becomes a bit of a challenge to even put these two-bit dictators down....I find the French particularly ridiculous in their lack of spine in these situations...But they do LOVE to criticize the U.S., who by taking action/making the hard decisions, at least have a shot at solving some of these crises.....Neville Chamberlain has been alive and well for many decades in continental Europe... I got off-track. I meant to say that the U.S. also has its own interests involvedin these decisions, and although I view the Kurd incident as an extremely unfortunate one, (and we likely did make the wrong decision).......being American, I have a hard time ever blaming the "management" of the U.S. for acting in what it perceives as its own best (short-term and long-term) interest. That is what governments do. Re: Abortion. Well, that's one we should probably take PM. But you can't blame women for opening their legs if you don't also blame men for inserting their penis. Last I checked, it takes 2 to tango (create a "multiplication" problem). Enjoy your market posts.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (37834)	12/11/2000 5:55:05 AM
From: JRI	Respond to of 42787

OT BTW- It is very difficult for the U.S. to support any (minority) groups in other countries when there is not an overwhelming will in that country for change. Sure, some/many (?) Kuwait(ies?) want democracy, but there is not a big enough outcry for them to overthrow the powers that be in that country. Did the Kuwait(ies) royalty back away from their promises post-war? Sure. Is there enough political backbone among the Kuwait(ie) people to hold their own leaders "feet to the fire" on this one. Obviously not....So, maybe Kuwait is not ready for such change. For revolutionary change, you need a solid foundation for the "democratic" house....Yugoslavia, recently (and in 1989, East Germany, Czech Republic, etc.) are great examples. If hundreds of thousands of people get mad enough, and march in the streets, and quit working....well, that so de-legitimized a government that they usually fall without one bullet even being fired.....these groups don't even need arms....their "will" is enough...and that creates a great base for a democracy. Revolutions can only start in such ways, and can rarely being imposed by exterior powers. And that's why its ridiculous for the U.S. to support "revolution" in places like Cuba...without the foundation of the majority (actually, vast majority) of the population in support...it is impossible for such things to succeed. Such actions will not be legitimate, and will be viewed as just another coup d'etat...(Ironically, with Cuba, the very people who could be changing/could have changed the situation, a la Yugoslavia, are sitting in Miami complaining that the U.S. doesn't do enough while they are unwilling to give up their homes in Coral Gables to fight for the revolution). How can you have a revolution if all the revolutionaries leave? For the U.S., it is a difficult decision, because support of minority groups in other countries brings all sorts of nasty consequences for the U.S, while often having a so-so chance of success. If the Iraqis people do not care enough about getting rid of Hussein, protecting the Kurds, etc...it is very difficult for the U.S. to do that for them....This is extremely unfortuate and unfair for the Kurdish people, this I grant you. Finally, over the weekend, I was at a party and spoke to a Colombian about the problems in their country. This guy comes from a prominent family, and was, believe it or not, recently kidnapped for 6 months by gorillas there. His bodyguard was tortured/killed before his eyes. His family payed (and is still paying) well over a million dollars randsome. He is living in the U.S. to protect his family/life/future kidnapping. I asked him what he thinks the U.S. should do. He said, "Take the U.S. army, go to Colombian, and get rid of the gorillas". He said that the Colombian government is simply unable to do it, and the situation is only getting worse, and the country is on the verge of outright civil war. I asked him, "do you think the majority of the Colombian population would support a U.S. action there?". He said "Yes", but then he hesistated and said, but, "of course, there are many that would NOT want the U.S. there. But they are the ones that are stupid and uninformed about what's really going on"... Again, America is in a "damned if you do" situation. We both know that if we increased our troop presence there, L'Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine, etc. would have a field day criticizing the U.S. The European governments (ex-England) will pass a proclamation criticizing the U.S.'s actions. It would hurt our relations with Venezuela, a key oil producer. The U.S. press would seize the moment to make references to Vietnam. Our country would certainly be divided. And, yet, this guy is probably right. The U.S. IS the only one who can change the situation. What to do? Sorry about the rambling...too much late night coffee...