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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcmay who wrote (173757)	3/23/2003 1:45:24 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OTOT of course I knew you were being facetious. I wonder if this war is going to plan as far as the WH is concerned.

To: tcmay who wrote (173757)	3/23/2003 8:50:42 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim, RE: "This is a war of corporatism and imperialism." The official title of what you describe appears to be similar to, "Pax America." Pax America is a plan that was drafted in 1992 but rejected and then revisited in 2000 and now some believe it is being implemented, per article below. "...The approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire. Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP." accessatlanta.com RE: "Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. We have it in spades. Chevron, Texaco, Halliburton, and other companies closely associated with the Bush Dynasty will be the recipients of the largesse created by this imperialism. A hundred billion to fight this war and "rebuild the infrastructure" (the money flowing into Halliburton and Texaco) is a lot of money. This is $1000 for each of the 100 million taxpaying households. Or, since a big chunk of those households pay little or no taxes, a lot more than $1000 from the higher-paying households." accessatlanta.com (from the article) "In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. ..."the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come." "Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us? "If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high." /* sarcasm on / Tim, do you know what countries have low tax rates & limited military spending? / sarcasm off */ I don't particularly mind the high taxes. But I do mind when it's not spent frugally - war is not frugal - it kills Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians and a one-day Baghdad bombing (Fri) cost $380M and killed 8 innocent people and injured hundreds of innocent civilians. Some in the CIA believe war is going to increase terrorism. While the military has a blank check, it appears the CIA/FBI doesn't have enough funds - the USA has less than 12 FBI types in Karachi to identify bin Laden. A high-level CIA terrorist expert recently resigned - for personal reasons, of course. We are building up military complexes rather than using intelligence to protect. Regards, Amy J