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: Hawkmoon who wrote (115024)	9/16/2003 6:20:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, on the Maslow Hierarchy of Governance, I agree with you that militarism isn't the worst of the choices. Which is why I suspect that North Korea isn't as bad as some other countries around the world. Although it's a dictatorship with the great and wondrous Kim as King, it's largely a military system. Which is, as you say, not all that bad, if living in barracks and obeying orders is your kind of fun. Give me that before theocratic, apartheid, or Rwandan style rule any day. Even mob rule in democracy isn't necessarily worse than militarism. I'd rather live in non-democratic and wealthier China than democratic but poverty-stricken India [I think - but on the other hand, India is kind of British in attitudes, which makes up for a lot of material possessions]. That's why I think that a benevolent dictatorship by King George II would beat the malevolent dictatorship of King Saddam the Great any time and why most Iraqis are, I guess, not that keen to see the USA bail out any time soon. But I don't have bottomless pockets so they are going to have to work to get their affairs in order and start running the show themselves. While obeying "superiors" does make for an orderly lifestyle, it's not conducive to a creative, energetic, entrepreneurial society of peace, light, harmony, happiness, health, prosperity, longevity, fun and love. That stuff stems from free individuals in self-deterministic mode, seeking self-fulfillment at the apex of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. My son, who is software oriented, and his friend, a painter [both house-painting and art-painting] and I have different approaches to problems. Tarn, our son's friend, says, "Paint it", I say, "Oil it", Tarken says "Build a web site". The military mindset says, "Salute it". I think each has its place, but unfortunately, the military mindset too often wants to rule the roost, being of confrontational dominance hierarchy orientation. They by and large have a strong desire to be the boss. The rest of us see some limitations with their approach. Some very laughable limitations and while it's mostly a cheap giggle to laugh at "military intelligence", there are some serious issues to deal with in managing militarism, which remains essential to our secure lives, but can easily lead us into temptation and evil. You are aware of many examples of military misadventure. So, please excuse my Military Intelligence oxymoron, but it's a Kiwi Kulture way of keeping them in their place. They are advisors and should not get above their station. They should salute me. I pay their wages. We the Sheeple are their employees. They are working for us [and of course themselves as part of us]. I quite like having them around, despite the occasional idiocies. It's a little like I call Kumar "Kumara". There's no intent to denigrate [which I hasten to add is not a racist term]. It's to personalize and remind them that they are just one of us and to keep them where they belong, which is in Good Blokedom. If the Intelligent Military's can't laugh at their oxymoron's, then they are a humourless bunch of bastards who deserve even more. Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (115024)	9/16/2003 7:02:20 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Rumsfeld Sees No Link Between Iraq, 9/11 2 hours, 12 minutes ago By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. At a Pentagon (news - web sites) news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said. He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge." The Bush administration has asserted that Saddam's government had links to al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) that masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks. And in various public statements over the past year or so administration officials have suggested close links. Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said on Sunday, for example, that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in the Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks. "No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied. Cheney said he recalled being asked about an Iraq connection to 9/11 shortly after the attacks, and he recalled saying he knew of no evidence at that point. "Subsequent to that, we have learned a couple of things," he said. "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s; that it involved training, for example, on BW (biological warfare) and CW (chemical warfare) — that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization." At his Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are making satisfactory progress in stabilizing the country. He said it was an "open question" whether the United States would get the 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops it seeks to create a third multinational division for security duty in Iraq. The Pentagon has been hopeful of getting at least that many additional troops from Turkey, Pakistan or other friendly countries to beef up security and possibly to allow some of the 130,000 U.S. troops there to go home next year. "It would relieve some of the pressure on our forces," Rumsfeld said. "Whether or not there will be a (United Nations (news - web sites)) resolution and whether or not — even if there were a resolution — we would get that number of troops is an open question." Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared with Rumsfeld, said there are more than 210,000 coalition forces in Iraq: 130,000 American troops, 24,000 British and other international troops, and 60,000 Iraqi police, border guards and cihttp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030916/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld_iraq_1vil defense forces.