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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (9215)	3/29/2003 8:29:35 PM
From: hank2010	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 39344

Just gotta respond, Marcos! I was born and raised in Canada and was taught all about how great the concept of the United Nations was, how important it was to support them etc. In grade school we used to recognize "United Nations Day". I have read of polls stating that the majority of Canadians did not want to support the use of armed force in Iraq without unequivocal UN sanction. And yet, when Mikhail Gorbachev sent his black berets to fire upon peaceful demonstrators in Vilnius, Lithuania I wrote to Stephen Lewis the Canadian representative to the UN. Answer "while it was an unfortunate incident, Canadian government policy is to support Gorbachev, not to antagonize him" . And nobody did anything! When the Serbs ringed the hills around the beautiful city of Sarajevo with their tanks and artillery and rained down their shells and sniper bullets on innocent civilians, I wrote to the Canadian Minister of External Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy and got a computer generated reply about Canada's role in the United Nations. And nobody did anything for years! When France sent their troops to invade the Cote D'Avoire a couple of months ago, I did not hear anything about Canada or the UN complaining. I listened while France and Russia and China said they would use their veto to stop the UN from issuing the 18th resolution on Iraqi disarmament. I did not understand how they could reconcile their position with their unanimous support of Res. 1441. Afterwards, I read that these same 3 countries accounted for 83% of the arms shipments to Iraq in 2002 in direct violation of UN sanctions! Now I understand! And where was the UN in Rwanda? Why did Canada send troops to Afghanistan and to Kosovo without UN sanction? Now I look at TV and see and hear items on Iraqi torture and execution, of people who do not want to fight, of women who wave white flags, and of POWs. I contrast that with the pictures of American and British troops carrying wounded Iraqi soldiers to safety, of military doctors giving aid to these wounded, and of troops protecting Iraqi civilians from Iraqi troops and terrorists! This may sound naive to many, but I have a hard time worrying about a world dominated by the United States when they and the other members of the "faux coalition" are the only ones noble enough to risk the lives of their citizens, and spend their countries' treasure, to liberate the Iraqi citizens and save them from Saddam, that most sadistic of humans. And I realize that there are some who will chuckle at my naive use of the term "liberate". To them I point out that some of the world's most recently liberated, the Bulgarians, the Rumanians, the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Poles, the Latvians, the Estonians and the Lithuaniaans are so strong in their support of the US. I note that the Poles, Estonians and Lithuanians have promised to send troops to support the effort. I do not consider them naive, only thankful to have been liberated. Recently, I received a pm from a gentleman who called himself "just Joe average American". I do not wish to be dominated by anyone! But if it has to happen, I would choose to be dominated by "just Joe average American" over all others!

To: marcos who wrote (9215)	3/29/2003 9:36:56 PM
From: TrueScouse	Respond to of 39344

<<Have you heard anything on Cadre?>> Nothing more than you've noted. I agree that it looks as though Chavez will hang on till the elections and that nothing major's going to get approved in Venezuela before then. But I still like the project! Just have to wait a few more years. :^( Cheers, Howy

To: marcos who wrote (9215)	3/30/2003 9:54:31 AM
From: BSGrinder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 39344

Thanks for your thoughts, Marcos. There is much wisdom in what you say. As an American who lived through the entire Vietnam war (including the French phase), I am well aware of the destruction that the US can wreak despite good intentions. And I believe it is becoming clear that this war was started by a regime that does not even have good intentions, as defined by anyone other than themselves. The liberation of the Iraqi people and the protection of the US people from terrorism is only a fig leaf for a plan to bring military power into the mid-east oil equation. Iraq is being attacked because we can, not because we must. Similarly, the never-ending war on terror in the US is a misdirection play that keeps citizens diverted from internal issues such as economic stagnation, corporate malfeasance, the looming currency/credit crisis, and the degradation of our civil liberties. It surprises me that investors who have become sophisticated enough to discern the earnings deceptions, and outright fraud, of people carrying the mantle of public trust, namely corporate CEOs, should be so reluctant to recognize that the administration is playing fast and loose with the truth about Iraq, in order to advance their own agenda. An agenda which I believe will proved to be based on some terrible miscalculations (which we are already seeing) and which will have serious ill effects on the US. Finally, I grow weary of those who insist that patriotism requires support for a misguided foreign policy that actually undermines our national security and destroys our credibility in the community of nations. The strength of our democracy is our empowered and concerned citizenry, not our ability to follow orders. /Kit P.S. Re Venezuela: I think you underestimate the working class support that Chavez has. The "business man's" revolution gets very good press here, but I am certain it is being largely financed covertly by the US - another example of our commitment to "democracy."

To: marcos who wrote (9215)	3/30/2003 12:32:43 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39344

marcos et al: I am a US citizen who considers this and most other US wars since WWII to be mistakes. It is crucial why one believes this. I consider human rights to be primary, and gov'ts justified as the protectors of those rights. The consensus view is that governments are at least co-primary, having a "right" to exist, and sovereign immunity against external interference. This view, enshrined in the UN and other parts of the laws of nations, inherently enshrines gov'ts (often mistakely equated with nations) as primary objects of protection, charged individually with protecting their people (who are thus rendered secondary). When barbarians achieve power over a population, as Saddam has, the issue is or ought to be their human rights violations. Whether the barbarians are domestic or foreign usually (and differingly) affects the capcacity, will and means of the people to resist, and the willingness of foreign gov'ts to aid their resistance (witness Kuwait '91). Whether the source of oppression is domestic or foreign has no effect upon the existence of human rights violations, even if many effects and duration may vary. So I take issue with: the billions of us on this world will never accept domination by a few in the back rooms of DC, this PNAC agenda ['Project For A New American Century'] .... it is not human to submit to such concentration of power, and there have to be effects coming from the attempt That isn't the US, because the rest of the world isn't Iraq. Even the rare nation that draws a US invasion has a very brief "submission" period, and its people have much more freedom thereafter (until old ways resume). I believe (admittedly, very much a minority view) in the right of the truly righteous (who can be another gov't) to remove a gov't that has (long enough, hard enough, with no end in sight) violated the basic human rights of its people. I don't mean denying them socialist "rights" to material status; I mean killing, raping, torturing, etc. Of course, that position can never be international law, as there never has been or will be a shortage of power-lovers and outright evildoers claiming to be truly righteous. Yet that doesn't prevent recognition that, in any given case, the elimination of a regime truly is being done by the righteous, for the innocent, and as a "just war" (in a civil and theological sense, even under Catholic doctrine, notwithstanding the Pope's view of this war). I oppose this war because I agree with you about "the effects coming from" it. I see my country reaping a harvest of blood and ill will for decades, and because I doubt we'll change Iraq in the long term. While debatable, I think the better way for the US to deal with the Muslim world is to try to achieve justice in Israel, stop supporting corrupt regimes worldwide, and start making people pay the "real" cost of energy in less destructive and counterproductive measures than our armament, bombs, and soldiers' lives. Meanwhile, I would extirpate Al Quaeda wherever they can be found. A nicer, more limited, but still very stark form of carrot and stick.