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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (3928)	5/27/2001 9:34:36 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Rushing to say that I didn't mean to imply that you think of Muslims as "them" - you aren't that way at all. I mean that "us" vs. " them" is a universal theme played out between countries and cultures throughout recorded history. Fresh in my mind is the Taliban forcing Hindus in Afghanistan to wear symbols on their outer garments. Yellow triangles, maybe?-ng-

To: TobagoJack who wrote (3928)	5/27/2001 10:54:15 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

The "Great Game," as Kipling described it, was intended to keep the Russians from getting a warm water port to the south, say, the Indian Ocean. What Great Britain wanted was to protect India, the grand prize of the British Empire. American activities in the Middle East are directed towards preserving our access to oil, which we unfortunately have allowed ourselves to become dependent on. Your assertion that we wish to "redraw the map" is interesting, because it is contrary to my understanding. We do not have, as far as I can tell, any desire to have an empire in Asia. If we do, it's pretty damn secret - I don't claim to have access to secrets, but I know a lot about politics. Further, I doubt very much that we are collaborating with, or furthering the goals of the British here - they seem to have given up on Empire completely. The British found that that they could not conquer the Afghanistani. We decided to turn quality that to our advantage and armed them against the Russians. Another example of the doctrine of unintended consequences. If there is any unexpressed US policy goal in the Middle East, I suspect that many Christians want to keep Jerusalem and the rest of their Holy Land out of the control of Islam. If push ever comes to shove between our support for Israel and our need for oil, I have no idea how that would play out. As far as I am concerned, I have no sentimental or spiritual attachment to rocks or dirt. Ideas are in the mind. >>China is actually not very afraid, and in fact democratic, more so than the US and Russia, about the ownership of nuclear bombs know-how, because it knows a more democratically balanced world is a safer world.<< I wonder whether you are joking or serious? Doesn't matter, I suppose. It's not about democracy, really, is it? If Islamic Jihad blows up the US, we won't be around to buy all those things stamped "Made in China," but we won't be around to interfere, either. Well and good. We know where we stand. So don't complain about the Serbian embassy, ok?;^)

To: TobagoJack who wrote (3928)	5/27/2001 11:32:49 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 74559

Follow up. I can see how US engagement in Korea, VietNam, and Cambodia, plus involvement with Japan, Pakistan, India, and Taiwan, once upon a time Afghanistan, and now relationship with Tibet might cause Chinese to fear that we wish to "redraw the map." From our perspective, the goal is fighting the expansion of Communism, which we have been doing for decades. Democracy good, Communism bad. Not that dissimilar to fighting the expansion of the Nazis - did we seek to "redraw the map" there?