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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (123472)	9/18/2001 8:32:55 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

>>BTW, we give Afghanistan $100 billion a year in humanitarian aid. Is this total aid including from charities and non-profits? It seems awfully high. That number exceeds the foreign aid budget of the the U.S. government...

To: Ilaine who wrote (123472)	9/18/2001 8:34:33 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

how bout backing off and letting HB do what he does best. okay sweets?

To: Ilaine who wrote (123472)	9/18/2001 8:38:11 PM
From: stomper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

we give Afghanistan $100 billion a year...huh? -dave

To: Ilaine who wrote (123472)	9/18/2001 8:57:37 PM
From: Alias Shrugged	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

CB <<BTW, we give Afghanistan $100 billion a year in humanitarian aid>> Do me a favor: divide $100 billion by the population of Afghanistan.

To: Ilaine who wrote (123472)	9/19/2001 2:14:45 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

well, you're right about one thing: it's our economic interests that drive the interventions,but certainly NOT the cries for help by the people concerned.after all, we glibly watch as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are starving and living in despicable conditions as a result of our sanctions and occupation. however, that makes our interventions (i say "our" because Europe is just as implicated) not any more justifiable. imho, if the operetta regimes in the Mid East that we support, and who retain power only by force, were to be replaced with democratically elected Islamist fundamentalist governments, it would have zero effect on the supply of oil. you don't seriously think they would stop selling it, do you? our biggest mistake is to assume that these foreign cultures should adopt OUR views of right and wrong, and that we should meddle in their affairs because of it. just sit back and think for a moment...let's assume hypothetically, Saudi Arabia had the most powerful military in the world, and say furthermore, political instability would beset Europe. so Saudi Arabia intervenes in some squabble, and thereafter, leaves its troops stationed in Vienna, Paris, etc. to 'protect its economic interests'. we would be REAL happy about that. that is how the populations of the Mid East countries regard the US/allied presence 11 years after the gulf war. to them, it's an illegal occupation. only their undemocratic governments who are held in power with our help welcome it. regarding the intervention in Yugoslavia, well, you see what the media serve up for us to see. my personal impression, merely anecdotal of course, was that people in Europe were not so sure about the military intervention being a good thing. Europeans are traditionally wary of military interventions due to the fact that we saw with our own eyes what the destruction of war means. note however, that i am not trying to take sides here, even though that may be the superficial impression. i merely present what i think the OTHER side believes. in their eyes, we are an unwelcome occupation force. and whatever we do now in our, nota bene justified, act of revenge, will only exacerbate the hatred. once again, i can't offer a solution off the cuff. but i do believe we should question our policies and perhaps try some out-of-the-box thinking for a while. to give you an example for what i mean (just an example, i'm not saying that it would be feasible...haven't thought much about it): let's say we told both Israel and the Palestinians that all aid will be cut off UNTIL they have forged a lasting peace, and that they can count on our full support thereafter. like i said, i don't know if that would be feasible, but what about what we've done until now? it hasn't worked, obviously.

To: Ilaine who wrote (123472)	9/19/2001 2:23:30 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 436258

Police fear suicide bombers will soon target British cities By John Steele, Crime Correspondent (Filed: 19/09/2001) BRITAIN will become a target for anti-western Islamic violence, including suicide bombings, for the first time following the US terror attacks, police and security forces said yesterday. Last week's atrocities have spurred a radical re-assessment of the terrorist threat to Britain in the first decade of the 21st century. portal.telegraph.co.uk