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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chomolungma who wrote (68404)	3/10/2003 12:31:14 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Respond to of 70976

RE: " I see the future as being brighter now than it has been at any time in my lifetime..." I would have to admit that the future seemed brighter before the 2000 Presidential election and before 9/11/01. In fact, your statement marks you as the same kind of "knee-jerk" you criticize. You voice disdain for "kne-jerk" negativism and espouse "knee-jerk" positivism.

To: chomolungma who wrote (68404)	3/10/2003 12:53:06 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

> disdain for America is firmly rooted here I do hope you are not packing me in there. > you would think that America hasn't done anything in the last 50 years that wasn't self-serving Barring the notable post WWII rebuilding programs, that is about true. If you know of examples to the contrary, bring them up. Now before you take that as America bashing, you should note that I don't think any of the self-righteous Europeans (or Russians, or Chinese, or...) would have done much differently either. In fact the Russians did a hell of a lot worse. And by the virtue of its great size and vast interests, US has been involved in almost every major conflict in the world. Were you under the impression that our defense industry grew because we were champions of peace? You could argue that while the cold war was raging on, some (not all) of what we did was necessary evil. I could be convinced of that. But that war is over. The gist of my argument is that Bush is taking a huge step backwards and is creating global instability instead of making the world a better place. Global stability is only possible if the world can agree on establishing international laws that everyone, including us will abide by even when it is not quite to our liking. This is what a real leader would have done. But like you said, it is much easier to take the path of attack and destruction than construction. Force begets force. There is a finite window of opportunity (that may already be mostly gone) before a serious opposition against US solidifies and we'll be forced to live in a cold war type of world again. I didn't like that world and look forward to its return even less enthusiastically. Unfortunately I cannot say that about defense and oil industries or the power hungry politicians who need to create a big threat to legitimize their abuses of power. Nuclear technology is almost 60 years old. Biological weapons are even older than that. Do you really think they can be kept out of terrorist hands indefinitely? This is a very important question that you should answer before you endorse Bush. His methods of brute force, IMO, will only make the world a worse place to live in. How will you even play the kind of games we played with soviets with the extremists? It is not as if mutual destruction (what a horrible prospect) is going to work with them. Instead of putting more pressure on someone who is holding a ticking bomb and is about to self destruct, you have to convince him that there is hope. Now I am done on this too. all the best, Sun Tzu

To: chomolungma who wrote (68404)	3/10/2003 2:44:33 PM
From: runes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

To chomolungma and JB Swanson (and maybe Fred? who is MIA at present) - I regret to read that you are both "done" here and hope that that is only a termporary condition and not a permamnent withdrawl. ...Yes, I understand how you feel beset by the posters on this thread as you do appear to be the minority opinion. And even more so as the Bush administration's policies have generated a great deal of frustration for which you have become the proxies. ...And you are correct to point out that this thread has, at times, become a forum for airing the litany of sins that this country has produced over the last 200+ years. But your participation is valuable to this thread. We need to understand that there is a different viewpoint and that that viewpoint is more substantial than just "Saddam is Evil" (a gross oversimplification of a very complex issue which made it an easy target). ...I do hope, that at some future time when you feel less aggrieved or more comfortable, you will rejoin us. As for Bush v. Hitler - ...This has apparently struck a nerve and, since it was my chestnut, let me be the first to apologize. It was not my intention to infer or imply that Bush was in the same category. It was only intended to point out a danger - a mechanism by which power corrupts. ...In Hitler's case it was eugenics which was in vogue at the time coupled with economic distress which was catalyzed by the fire at the Reichstag (blamed on terrorists). In our current situation it is economic distress coupled with fear of terrorism catalyzed by 9-11. The same/similar boundry conditions and we are seeing movement in a similar direction. ...But the magnitude of the patriot act pales in comparison to Hitler's marshal law and the detention of immigrants pales in comparison to Kristal Nacht and Guantanamo is no Auschwitz. ...The only reason that I made the analogy was to point out the potential for abuse. Just as someone pointed out that letting Saddam off easy could have an analagous effect to WWII appeasement which is also a valid concern. Because - to ignore the possibility is to invite the consequence.