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: DavesM who wrote (341350)	1/10/2003 4:18:00 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 769670

Sure, warlords will always make points berating one power or the other, agitating for new ignorant and unfortunate recruits for whatever cause gives them the most political gain. That's their "job". For the same reason, warlord states have been used for years as mercenaries against whoever the US wishes, making the level and direction of hostility well understood and controlled. Unfortunately, it has become the goal not to reduce hostilities but increase pressure on client states through constant fear of attack and terrorism. This is nothing new, in Reagan's era it was the Libyan terrorism that was whipped up as the bad guys. This is all part of the Brzezinski strategy, as he clearly states it, to keep the ROW from forming competitive combines by creating disruptions that only the US can deal with through influence by overall policy, as well as perception. Of course ZB doesn't use the word "terrorism" for any direct US action, but doesn't shy away from saying the US supports Saudi Arabia and others we know support terrorism in a big way. This is contamination of an already-flawed policy by cover military-industrial fiefdoms that can operate without disclosing their actions or payoffs. You would think hatred of American would be more accurately stated by foreign press reports, which in fact don't claim the GOP line that others want to kill Americans because of too much "freedom and prosperity", but due to direct and indirect military incursions into defenseless countries. Not to dismiss your comments on conflict in the 1950's, but it's fully become the "Grand Chessboard" now, with even more overwhelming US military and industrial forces at play, and less of the global conflict determined by random warlords. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If you're a follower of ZB, it's good. If you think the settling of the world into (as ZB ironically says) a "peaceful cooperative of democratic nations" is better done by actual regard for human life, it's a bad one, and in fact the reverse of common sense, substituting automated lethal force for progress towards civilization.