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: frankw1900 who wrote (18798)	2/13/2002 8:18:27 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What put Bush Sr. on the side of the angels on the Kuwait issue was national boundaries. Do they stand for something, or not? Or is it OK to steal another country's territory, or steal the whole country? Interesting thought, Frank. What leads you to believe this? My own answer was James Baker's, "jobs, jobs, jobs". Meaning the critical character of oil for the American economy. Not to mention his Houston buddies. John

To: frankw1900 who wrote (18798)	2/13/2002 11:32:48 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>There is great similarity between that and islamism - they're both totalitarian.<< Easier than that. They both: 1) are anti-democracy; 2) are anti-capitalist; 3) are anti-petit bourgeois/middle class; 4) are opposed to the freedom of the press, religion, and association; 5) believe that life is a zero sum game (if you win then I lose); 6) are opposed to the free transmission of ideas, the free passage of persons; free trade; 7) extraordinarily punitive of those who don't agree with them 8) deny the worth of the individual outside the ideology. Maybe all of the above are what you mean by "totalitarian" but I thought I'd be more specific.