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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (88799)	8/15/2002 8:22:57 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116753

'Two-faced' US policy blamed for Arab hatred Critics accuse US of championing democracy while propping up repressive Arab governments AS THE Bush administration struggles to deal with the Middle East conflict, critics of US policy have accused Washington of engaging in two-faced politics in the region - championing democracy but propping up less than democratic regimes at the same time. They say United States' financial support for the 'repressive' regimes has bred much resentment against it, as well as terrorism. Such resentment was likely to add an extra hurdle to US efforts to improve its poor image in the region, they added. Professor El Lozy, a lecturer at the prestigious American University in Cairo, told the BBC in a recent interview that Arab and Islamic people were opposed to the US not because it was a democracy, but because it had 'supported every possible anti-democratic government in the Arab-Islamic world'. He added: 'When we hear American officials speaking of freedom, democracy and such values, they make terms like these sound obscene.' Another critic, Mr Azizuddin El-Kaissouni, an Egyptian writer, in an interview with The Straits Times accused the US of 'moral hypocrisy'. 'Living in a country with an atrocious human rights record that also happens to be strategically vital to US interests is an illuminating lesson in moral hypocrisy and political double standards.' According to Mr El-Kaissouni, who writes for an Islamic website, terrorism was a reaction to the injustice in the region's domestic politics, inflicted in large part by the US. He said: 'Muslims in general condemned Sept 11 on the principle that the methods and the targeting were un-Islamic, rather than on a lack of legitimate grievances against the US.' Critics of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak say generous US support for his government has inflamed anti-US emotions in the country. Currently, Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid, getting around US$2 billion (S$3.5 billion) annually, of which US$1.3 billion goes to military aid and another US$600 million to economic assistance. Such aid plays a key role in keeping autocratic regimes in power by strengthening the hand of the state and supporting internal repression, said Mr Stephen Zunes, a senior policy analyst and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project. 'To this day, the United States maintains very close ties with Saudi Arabia, which despite being labelled a 'moderate' Arab regime adheres to an extremely rigid interpretation of Islam and is among the most repressive regimes in the world,' he said. But it seems that Washington is guided by more than just the need to protect its interests. It also fears that pushing hard for political change inside Arab states would fail to yield a better outcome. Mr Warren Bass, director of special projects and the terrorism programme at the influential Council of Foreign Relations, told The Straits Times: 'Backing repressive regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia is certainly a leading cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, but in both cases the likely alternatives are even nastier.' He added: 'I think America would do well to support the handful of gallant dissidents who want to open up Arab politics...but we shouldn't kid ourselves that the alternatives in Cairo or Riyadh are Jeffersonian democrats.'

To: long-gone who wrote (88799)	8/15/2002 8:27:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

I was getting to that. The percentage from a single volcano is great. Perhaps several years of man's total emissions from all his artifical of sources. But volcanoes are rare. You can just about name all of the ones in your lifetime. Pinatubo, St Helens, a couple from Hawaii, Iceland, Popacatapetl,Vesuvious. Cattle too, emit large amounts of greenhouse gases in most unpleasant ways. And forests although carbon dioxide sinks, end up being sources from two ways, emitting and fires. The only thing I can say is we are adding to it in a significant way, so if we are by a certain percent cutting off the places we can live, so be it, we cannot complain about it in that case. We may end up living in the sea to avoid the suns rays and keep cool. I will build myself a concrete shelter at a depth of about 30 feet, with a shark fence, and a flue to the surface for ventilation. Should be able to live on flounder and seaweed. Energy from waves, wind and sun. Call is Seahab 2000+ Go to surface put on the double sunblock and go for a sail for relief from Subaquaclaustra syndrome. A window on the sealife like Nemo had in his submarine would be calming and entertaining. EC<:-}