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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (24486)	8/7/2003 1:32:18 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 89467

War and Aftermath Thanks. Good article. Dovetails nicely with what I was thinking about this morning. Many (and probably most) who have considered the root causes of 9-11, concluded that "a situation" existed within the Arabic heartland of the Middle East, that if left unaddressed would, like an abscess, only worsen. The combination of failed states, and a well endowed Wahabi missionary effort would continue to produce 9-11 results. The corrupt political duopoly that has controlled this country for the last century and a half, failed again in 2000. While I can offer only my suppositions of how micro-managing Gore would have reacted to 9-11, I believe it would have been almost as bad as the Bush response – different, but as bad. That's not to say that Gore wouldn't be great in a staff position, but not "head honcho". What was needed was someone more like Truman. Someone, who’s goal was what’s best for the country – even if it lowered the “prestige” of the President. Only such an individual would knowingly try to obtain the most capable help, even if they may overshadow the President. Instead, we had a choice in 2000 that I characterized as “Dumb and Dumber”, and I feared the country would pay a dear price. Some will say I should have expected no other alternative. It was just all part of the Kondratieff wave, and we were doomed anyway. Maybe, but it’s not my nature to “go gently into the night”. So I raged in 2000, and I’m outraged now. I may believe that no matter who is elected in 2004, economically “things” are going to get worse. That doesn’t mean that the “worse” can’t be either softened or exacerbated by policies in Washington. If one is a Kondratieff fatalist, all the more reason not to have war hawks in power as the “wave” approaches a minima. As I’ve stated many times , I believe this is a MIC (Military Industrial Complex) controlled Admin. For them 9-11 was not a disaster, but an opportunity to be seized. That the “situation” in the Middle East was not amenable to a military solution just never occurred to them. That’s not to say that a solution might have a minor military component, but it does say that culture resists militarily imposed change – just ask the Seleucids of the Hellenistic era. A carefully crafted response tailored to the cultural problem we faced was called for. Instead, we got the implementation of a MIC full employment plan formulated a decade earlier. JMO lurqer