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 (89628)	9/15/2002 5:19:48 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

I don't think he (Chretien) is unsympathetic with America, but he is looking realistically at how you head off at the pass the continued hostility of some nations. I am not sure this can be done easily. For instance in the middle ages the Arabic nations were rich, and Ghenghis Khan was looking to expand his borders. You could say Khan was poor. So in order to appease him many Arabic cities paid him tribute instead of fighting. I am not sure that was effective in all cases. It was also hardly justified that Khan should expand his borders. Today many Muslims have the last name Khan. It was equally culturally insensitive that the Muslims expanded their borders both east and west in later times. They used the religious conversion excuse. They were the first crusaders, or we could say scimitaraders. I think the problem of why nations and cultures polarize, and what to do about it is more complex than merely rich-poor issues. It is partly religious-cultural, partly perceived dominance of the richer country politically, and partly sheer propaganda and will to power. In the case of Iraq, and to a lesser extent Iran, they both view the US as historically interfering in their domestic politics, which is true. the US dominated and interfered with Iran and Iraq in the name of supporting repressive puppet regimes for regional control, and for oil. This is deeply resented. The hostility of the US towards these countries today is seen as an extension of that former policy. These nations also deeply resent, and say they are sympathetic with the plight of Palestinians whose ancestral homeland is fragmented by recent political occupation and religiously rooted hegemony. This is for the most part hypocritical because it is doubtful that any Arab regime, let alone Sharon or other Iraeli leader, would let the Palestinians have self determination. Ask the Jordanian rulers. The unrest in the Muslim world is also because the regimes are fundamentally undemocratic. Filling that void or threatening to fill that void are extreme students and cleric who rally around a uni-party state based on Muslim principles and repressive policies. Why there has to be only one party, and religious dominance is a mystery. The penchant that some Muslims have justifying killing anyone who disagrees with them or insults their religion, lets them get the upperhand in any "democracy "that does not suppress their worst tendencies and extreme demagogues. That is why Algeria, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq would be dangerous vaccums if the regimes that currently dominate politics there were replaced with anything but a clean house, and military control for some period of time until the culture can be stabilized. I should note here that fr. Canadian views on world poltics are generally quite independent of Western Canada and English speaking views. Fr. Canadians are definitely far more lenient to socialist regimes. They do not see Cuba as a threat, or look upon their regime as that repressive. They would tend to believe that the Sandanistas were preferrable to Batista or Somoza. You could call it laissez-fair socialistic world politics. English Canada is far more leery about the thin edge of the socialist wedge in principle, and far too tolerant of strong man dictatorships in Latin America. My tendency is to think both points of view have their dangers and need revisiting if we are to promote regimes that are self sustaining politically and economically, whether or not they are perfectly aligned with our way of thinking. EC<:-}

To: long-gone who wrote (89628)	9/15/2002 11:23:58 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

What i get Richard is more proof that you path is unchanged, as you continue to allow that surcingle placed around you by those who know how to wave the Red White & Blue, that represents the thoughts of America's Founding Fathers, to have you lead the attack on those principles, unknowingly by you. Yes Richard, all these events have really been "an inside job" using as pawns your kind to weaken America's defenses internally, and those of others nations to attack America at these points of weakness. Please note that those who seemly skillfully accomplished all this had not these items of physical attacks like 9/11 as objectives, but more of the Power & Wealth equation parameters needed, to accomplish those ends. Might you obtain a true'r understanding than your substantial "just the opposite" of what you believe it to be, i answer that i have asked you to view a past post of mine, that outlines in a simple connect the dots picture of your activity, with your unavailabity to help yourself since you keep tight the girth that allows those sandwhich you are fighting, to have you reverse your aim and help them. (or) Notice please those on this thread that have welcomed you into ... oops ak