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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (113979)	9/5/2003 6:48:39 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn >>> You do come up with a neat saying, from time to time................... It is truly unfortunate the GWB is a human being instead of a machine and is willing to admit to both good and evil. The good part is that he represents in fair measure the nature of his constituents and acts along those lines as indicating by his success in the polls. The evil part of him is to employ the US Military in its assigned role in salvaging what is left of peace and economy in the US following the attacks of 911 by putting out a "contract" on the regimes of the following two people: . Saddam Hussein: The good part of Saddam is that he kept his family pure by assassinating those oafs his sisters married (after luring them back to Iraq), by burying people in mass graves after killing them (so they wont be alone), by eliminating many of the Kurds and Shiites so the survivors would have more to eat, and by giving French and German workers employment in his oil fields. The rest of his character was all bad. OBL: The good part of Osama Bin Ladin is that he tells the plain truth. He and his religious followers are determined to wage war and kill all non-muslims with sneaky attacks from ambush because Allah is great and life is hard and its best for all his followers (excepting him of course ) to meet Allah as soon as possible. The rest of his character is all bad. Sig@sobeit.com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (113979)	9/5/2003 6:14:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

If the U.S. had not fought in WW1, it is likely Germany would have won, or perhaps there might have been a negotiated settlement (serious negotiations were done in 1917, but failed). Why should that have mattered to us? All we did was protect two empires from two others (Germany Austria-Hungary). 2. If the U.S. had insisted, as a condition of our entry into WW1, that the war goals would be Wilson's "peace without victors", instead of the punitive humiliating treaty that was imposed on Germany, WW2 might not have happened. Sure, sure... whatever you say... Just get your troops over here and we'll "forget" about that stipulation later on when we win the war.. After all, what would Wilson have been in a position to do when public sentiment dictated that we should "put the screws" to the German people for starting that war? 3. If the U.S. had not responded to the Depression, with a beggar-thy-neighbor tariff war, the Depression might have been over, before Hitler was elected. The Nazi party was a tiny nuisance, no more, until the global Depression caused massive suffering. Uh, excuse me? Do you think we arrive at that policy in a vacuum? Why don't we take a look at all the goods we were absorbing into the US economy, which was creating rampant unemployment.. All because Europe and the rest of the world was being subsidized by the US. England went off the gold standard in 1931, essentially devaluing their currency.. 1/2 of all US banks had collapsed. Rampant deflation.. And a popular outrage that would have likely cost Roosevelt his office had he opposed those tariffs. But the major point is for you not to "broad-brush" the causes of the depression by claiming that it was all the fault of the US, or even it's international economic policy. 4. If French, American, and British troops had done Regime Change in Germany, when Hitler first violated treaties, it could have been done for 1/100th the actual cost. Gee whiz... you seem to be making my case for me.. What if the UN had FORCEFULLY stepped in and demanded that Saddam abide by those binding resolutions, instead of continuing to appease him with tepid admonishments and toothless inspections? And as you also note, it's widely acknowledged that Hitler was very fearful of how the other European nations would respond to his annexation of the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. The odds are that if the world had stiffened its spine and faced him down immediately many millions of people would not have been required to die. But we didn't... And when Bush "stiffens" his spine to deal with those regimes harboring/nurturing Islamic militantism, you claim he's out of line and making the world hate us.. 6. If the U.S. had not orchestrated an oil embargo against Japan, they wouldn't have attacked us. And if the Japanese had not invaded Manchuria, raped Nanking, or sank the USS Panay, they might not have had their oil and scrap metal cut off by the US... After all, we used the same kind of sanctions against Iraq, did we not? Hawk