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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (8475)	10/31/2001 11:22:31 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How does this sound as an idea? Your comment is flawed in that we can, and do, BUY oil, billions $$ worth. And yet we still provide military forces. Correct me if I'm wrong, ratan, but it looks to me like we're getting the worst of both worlds: we pay for the oil, AND we pay for the military and foreign aid that protects the oil-producing countries, notably SA. If things were as you say, they should GIVE us the oil for all that we spend on their foreign aid and military support. In fact, that's a DAMN GOOD IDEA: Since SA supports the 5 countries that we officially state support terrorism, SA should, at the point of our gun, supply us with equivilant oil to compensate us for: (a)terrorism costs, all-inclusive of property damage, casualties, military action, and losses in the economy (I believe our bail-out plan is costing $100 billion so far, plus the WTC of another $40 billion, plus national slowdown of maybe $1/2 trillion or so) (b) foreign aid to those countries who are likewise affected by SA's support of terrorism, to the tune of something like $15 billion (c) while we're at it, let's see what China, Russia, Pakistan, and Russia have to say about compensation for Saudi Arabian-sponsored terrorism costs. How's that, ratan? Do you see a problem with that?

To: ratan lal who wrote (8475)	11/1/2001 2:57:45 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well ratan, I wish you would decide what you are arguing about. First you assert that the West doesn't need oil. Then you insinuate that I was wrong in stating that the West would collapse without oil. Now you say you agree with me, but America is dishonest. I just can't follow your logic. So I'm not going to continue to try. Seems fairly pointless so far. Derek

To: ratan lal who wrote (8475)	11/1/2001 7:50:48 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi ratan lal; Re: "That's what happened in Vietnam. People finally realized that many american soldiers had given up their lives for purposes which had nothing to do with defending the nation. Thats when people revolted and the Govt. finally had to unilaterally quit vietnam in shame and shambles." (1) Support for the war in Vietnam was a lot more popular than you're thinking. Only a small minority were ever in any demonstrations. That Johnson didn't run for reelection is not indicative of lack of support for the war. During war time, the nation has a habit of tending to prefer Republicans (who are far more vicious and warlike) to Democrats. The basic concept is that if you're going to fight a war you want the military party running the country. *Nixon was re-elected in an historic landslide.* He later got in trouble, but it was for being a crook, not for policy in Vietnam. And of course there never was any sort of "revolt". (2) The war in Vietnam was thought to be a useful part of American foreign policy at the time. Both Republicans and Democrats supported it, as did most of our allies overseas. Our foreign policy was defined just after the end of WW2 as the containment of Communism. Our theoreticians figured that eventually Communism would burn itself out. For instance, see: system.missouri.edu Vietnam was part of that containment. At the time, it looked very necessary. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Certainly it was not at all obvious that Communism was doomed at the time the US got involved in Vietnam had fallen. I had a Physics professor lecture us on the subject of why Russian Communism was superior to Capitalism and would win in the end as late as 1980. (BWAHAHAHAHA!!!) As far as the intelligence of US actions in the Cold War, I can only say that: (a) We won. (b) We were able to avoid total war. (c) We were able to avoid any war on American soil or on the soil of our principle allies. (d) While we did end up fighting a few brush wars with the Communists these were tiny affairs in comparison to just about any previous great power conflict. (e) While we did build all those nukes, we didn't set any off. For humans, with all their limitations, hatreds and stupidities, the Cold War was remarkable for its lack of violence. (This view may not be apparent to those who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.) WW1 and WW2, both with far more primitive weapons than the Cold War, killed far, far, far more people. -- Carl