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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (299044)	9/21/2002 3:23:28 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The (collective) mind of the massess is always maximal fear...You understand this being the momentum trader trader that you are...I'm not telling you anything here... It's the only reason that anybody feeds on all this fear based garbage...and george understands this...but the flip side he doesn't see at all....

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (299044)	9/21/2002 4:33:14 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't think emotions have anything to do with this, your position was typical of European in the 30's which allowed Hitler to rise to power... My position is not at all typical. European leaders were trying to appease Hitler who had already begun his program of annexation. Hitler had convinced the Germans that the rest of Europe presented a serious threat to the sovereignty and freedom of the German peoples. Every incident whether small or big that could be used to reinforce his argument was held up as an example. Hitler's position served two purposes.....he was terribly paranoid and Germany had suffered badly economically under the Weimar Republic and conditions had worsened during the Depression. He felt that annexation would make Germany powerful and insure its economic independence. Eventually, he convinced the Germans that the only way Germany could survive was through preemptive strikes on its neighbors........and thus his annexation program went into the implementation stage. Other European leaders were shocked at his arrogance and his lack of concern re international censorship. Attempts were made to calm his hostilities but were to no avail, and eventually WWII erupted. In any case, Europeans chose not to react to the aggressive actions of a hostile dictator, and went into denial after Hitler attacked and annexed several countries. That is not at all the same behavior exhibited by the US during the past ten years. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, we attacked Saddam. When bin Laden attacked the US, we responded. I believe those responses were appropriate. Therefore, how can you say that my position and the position of the US has been analogous to the behavior of the Europeans in the 30's? At the same time, how can you say that Mr. Bush's current wish to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq is in keeping with past US foreign policy? Preemptive strikes may be appropriate when it is very clear factually that the opposing nation is preparing to attack; otherwise, a preemptive strike is considered the tool of a bully, or a paranoid dictator like Hitler.