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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (131603)	9/20/2001 3:06:07 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Hegemony. You like that word, don't you? I know - when you learn a new word you need to use it a lot so it becomes a permanent part of your vocabulary. ;-) But, why do you think that influence equates to aggression? You also keep talking about US acts of terrorism, plundering and pillaging. Is that what you think we did in Kuwait? Was our "hegemony" over the all-white government of South Africa an act of aggression? Is attempting to broker peace (another act of hegemony) between Israel and the Palestinians a terrorist act? Remember, the Palestinians are happy to have us use our influence over the Israelis for their benefit (if we can). Just what terrorism, plundering and pillaging are you talking about? And don't bring up Native Americans - that was during Patzi's idyllic first 150 years. Bob

To: craig crawford who wrote (131603)	9/20/2001 4:38:53 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> Pat Buchanan likes to pretend that the US is not a global power << hogwash. you can be powerful without acts of aggression, imperialism, and hegemony. Correct. However the alternative to aggression is not, as Pat would want you believe, isolationism. (By the way, I can hardly believe that we are here discussing the opinions of a commentator who has openly supported Hitler). . as for fighting in WWI, perhaps he should have said 140 years, because that would have excluded our entry into WWI. So you are suggesting he twists the facts until they fit his pet theory. First he arbitrarily excludes the western hemisphere, then he ignores Libya, Philippines, Hawaii and Japan, now we should restrict ourselves to 150 year, wait, 140 year, nope, hold that, this would include China, lets make it 130 years, oops that includes Hawaii, 120 years. Ooops then there is Japan (open your ports or else... -signed Commodore Perry) so it is now only 80 years of supposed isolationism. so now we are getting somewhere. it doesn't come down to our righteousness or morality, it comes down to the all american dollar. Every country that goes into war likes to claim that they are acting for the greater good. Sometimes they are (Somalia comes to mind) sometimes they aren't (invasion of Guatemala), sometimes is a combination of factors (Kuwait). if we want to plunder and pillage the world for the benefit of our own citizens, why don't we just admit it rather than trying to con people that we are all that is good, pure, righteous, and moral when we clearly are not. Protecting your interests is not the same as plundering. Canada helped create an ecological buffer around depleted fishing banks in the north atlantic. By doing so it protected its interests and preserved a common resource for future generations from all countries that fish there. This is not plundering. Many such actions can and have been undertaken by the USA, such as the prosecution of the Libya pirates. >>The USA must act on those interests to keep its way of life, its living standard, << like i said, we are getting somewhere. you are exposing the real reason why we plunder and pillage foreign lands. Once again you confuse defending your interests with plundering. if the government would explain this to it's citizens in clear terms, maybe they could understand why america is hated throughout much of the world and why we are now targets. Funny, Osama bin Laden attacked the relief forces in Somalia, which were there mostly to prevent famine. You call that plundering, and the reason why the WTC got bombed. Personally I think the terrorists are zealots in search of a cause and America provides an easy target irregardless of her actions, as the Somalia example illustrates.