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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (68436)	1/24/2003 2:32:49 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

1) mercenary state - paid for with overt and covert US funds to perform mercenary tasks around the world (including odd places like Nicaragua), but primarily to maintain threat levels to control the M.E. oil dictatorships. 2) "Democracies support one another" - nothing in the Constitution says any such thing. In fact the Founders and presidents since warned repeatedly against foreign entanglements, as an inevitable and damaging trend, to be resisted constantly. The "Make the World Safe for Democracy" is a wonderful slogan that can be implemented much better with American cultural and business influence than heavy-handed military, which tends to shoot people and destroy things unnecessarily, in its own self-interest. 3) Peace in the ME a US interest - two facts on that: a) Sure, it would be nice. But no, not at the cost of American lives and increased domestic terrorism caused by US presence in blood feuds. b) US presence in any conflict in the world immediately and fundamentally changes the nature of that conflict, and becomes the most important factor, more important than the causes of either side. The US presence CAUSES conflict and war in the M.E. The excuses for military adventures are varied, and are sold to the world and the US public as "peace-keeping", "oil preserving", "democracy-supporting", but any look shows since WWII none of that has been the case. The Pentagon should have been dismantled after WWII as planned. Instead a conflict-seeking bureaucracy grew, hoping for another WWII, but having to settle for the Cold War and now terrorism. Here's a no-lose proposition: announce immediately a program to make the US independent of M.E. oil within 10 years... It's a litmus test. So many implications follow from that, that it's staggering. You don't have to believe any of the military-industrial issues to believe that's a good idea. Yet it won't be done, won't be even announced, and will be fought against from the Executive level on down, for FP, oil, defense, and domestic political reasons.