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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (23706)	10/1/2002 8:21:26 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Ray, get some perspective. You are the left wing reciprocal of an obsessive-compulsive Clinton basher. There are much worse evils than Bush in the world. Thanks to George Dubyah, boys in Afghanistan can fly kites again, and girls can go to school. Isn't that terrific? Snow

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (23706)	10/1/2002 8:32:34 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Well, I'm in favour of an impeachment too, if only to show the USA constitution in action. Congress retains the right to turf the rogues out of the White House. Nixon went, Clinton was too popular to risk messing with [the ladies thought he was great and a lot of others did too - he seemed to do a lot better at getting people smiling and talking than GeorgeW can and he seemed to have a lot between his ears, even if a lot of it was linked directly to his gonads]. But I don't think Congress will be of a mind to turf out King George given the current political winds in the USA. Heck, the difficulty with the last election was enough for Congress to say "Let's have another go at it and this time, really push those chads outa there". But they have bigger fish to fry. Thanks for the links. It was me, way back in 1988 who predicted a bullet through the middle east [and with exactly those words]. For a decade I have maintained that the fantastic oil company profits from Iraq's oil being off the market might not be the main driving force of the confrontation with Saddam, but as with any biasing influence, they are a substantial factor [probably sufficient to make a person feel all moral about defending the 'freedom' of Kuwait]. I've been a cynical observer of political machinations for 35 years now. The USA has brought a lot of grief on itself by ignorant treatment of other people. Now Iraq has brought a lot of grief on itself by its treatment of other people. I'd rather have GeorgeW as King Kong than Saddam. He can always be turfed out next election. A spot of colonisation is a good idea. That'll help settle the Jihad down a bit. It'll make other countries such as Libya, Pakistan [when their leaders change], Iran, Indonesia, Syria and Saudi Arabia a bit more circumspect about allowing Jihad to thrive in their Madrassas. Abu Nidal won't be given a base for operations. Funding for suicide bombers will be risky. I don't agree that USA troops in the land of Mecca is justification for destroying the Twin Towers and a lot more besides. Especially since the current bosses in Saudi Arabia allowed them. Mqurice

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (23706)	10/1/2002 8:58:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Ray, a lot of the support for Saddam and Iraq stemmed from the hostage-taking in Tehran before Reagan took over. The USA was up in arms about Iran, crashed and burned in the desert in a rescue attempt. Impotent and frustrated. Carter didn't know what the heck to do. Of course the Iranians saw in the incoming Reagan a wacko crazy who would just nuke the whole place, which says something for not being too intelligent when confronting a Gordian Knot. So they got those hostages outa there before Reagan got his finger on the trigger. Carter supposedly negotiated their freedom, but it was the sight of Raygun riding into Washington on his high horse which frightened them. Rightly so. So then, the USA was all for supporting Iraq and Saddam to get those bastards. It also was part of the geopolitical pressure northwards at a time when the USSR had expanded into Afghanistan and was looking dangerously close to the warm oceans to the south, not to mention a lot of oil in the middle east. So Saddam was their man. Away it went through the 1980s and even when the great and wonderful Gorby came on the scene, the Americans stupidly couldn't see that there had been a geopolitical earthquake and it was time to rethink about just what everyone was doing and why. They kept the pressure on, thinking they had a winning hand. Sure enough, Gorby got the heck outa there [Afghanistan] and tried to civilize the USSR. But did the pressure come off? Nooooo.... The Yanks foolishly thought the Evil Empire was based in Moscow. Meanwhile, the real threat was percolating in the Moslem Jihad world. So King George I was simply following on with the old ideas and was befuddled when the USSR suddenly collapsed. The Americans then thought they had won, when the collapse was really nothing to do with them - just as China hasn't reformed because of American pressure. They just changed internally, as countries do when pressure mount and something has to be done or risk mayhem. Anyway, on it went... into the 1990s and Osama and goodbye Twin Towers. Now, Putin is a buddy and the Axis of Evil component of the Matrix of Malevolence is seen to be sourced back in Tehran and Baghdad [with North Korea thrown in for the good old days - though they are now getting ready to buy CDMA from Samsung and co, so Peace will be upon them soon]. What's really needed to put a stop to the Matrix of Malevolence is a complete rehash of the United Nations. The constitution is absurd. Until they fix it up, the USA is quite justified in looking on the world as Law of the Jungle. It was only because of USA and British intransigence that the UN waffling has got Saddam agreeing that maybe some inspectors would buy him some time. The UN is a dribbling waste of money - allowing mass murder in Srebenica and mayhem in East Timor [and Rwanda and elsewhere]. People are saying the new inspection plans are a victory for diplomacy instead of war. That's nonsense. It was nothing but the threat of USA troops driving tanks around Presidential Palaces which got Saddam to buy time. I say colonize Iraq with a reconstituted UN and use the oil to administer and develop Iraq and support UN functions. None of the inspections muck. That's just bureaucratic make-work. Come on GeorgeII, announce the date, give the Iraqi soldiers and Saddam a way out [Saddam to exile - Libya?] and there will be a bloodless coup. New, blue, UN uniforms would look good on a lot of Iraqi police and soldiers. They'd be grateful for US$100 in their pocket to show their wives. Mqurice