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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mcg404 who wrote (19733)	12/5/2003 2:58:51 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81118

John > Did the Afghani need the US help to outlast (and defeat) the Russians? Yes and no. USSR was tempted into Afghanistan as a trap which was baited by the US. The USSR/Afghan war was not an isolated conflict but part of a much greater US global strategy, which, in fact, was extremely successful because no-one realized what was going on, including the Afghanis themselves. Of course, today everyone can see what's going on because the US has shown its hand --- in fact, it doesn't give a damn who sees its cards. jang.com.pk >>>All that rhetoric about the 'war on terror' was to gain foothold on Afghanistan so that the energy resources of Central Asia also become the monopoly of Anglo-American new founded Empire. The soft power of USA is metamorphosed into hard power and George Bush is the mighty Caesar at the seat of global Empire. It is an ambition, which has an historical underpinning. 9/11 only facilitated the fulfilment of the aspirations. When Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976, his advisor Brezezinski, brought Bernard Lewis, former Professor of Islamic Studies, University of London, and later at Princeton University, USA to promote what came to be known as "The Crescent of Crisis Policy". Subsequently Samuel Huntington joined to complete the trio of "intellectual terrorism," with his infamous dogma of "Clash of Civilization". It was essentially a derivative of "Crescent of Crisis", propounded by Lewis, who was the main architect of balkanisation of the Middle East. In fact, "every disastrous American US policy toward the Middle East and Central Asia over the past quarter century can be attributed to Lewis influence". <<< > Same question for Vietnam/US. I'm not sure what the purpose of that war was. As events have subsequently unfolded, it did not fit into any obvious pattern or plan other than the expansion of the US military-industrial complex and the attempt to acquire oil which they believed existed in the Gulf of Tonkin. > same question for Iraq/US. The purpose of this war is part of the the picture described above in the "Clash of Civilizations" scenario ie the Amerikan Empire --- the attempt of the US to maintain its "unipolar" world. >>>Afghanistan and Iraq are captured territories. Which one is the next target among the Muslim countries is the question? Is it Syria, Iran, Pakistan or all of these in quick succession? The looming uncertainty is deliberately manipulated to dilute the ideological glue that binds Muslim nations into a cohesive entity to muster a collective response. The impending threat would atomise them so that they remain selfishly tuned to their own individual security - Country First Syndrome. Iraq's capture is especially significant as it provides the strategic leverage to exercise imperial control over the entire 'Crescent of Crisis', with its enormous oil wealth and Israel free to act as it suits US-Israel strategic objectives. The well deliberated military action against Iraq, first in 1991 by the father of the present President and repeat of the same by his son in 2003 followed by attack on Afghanistan in 2001, are the fulfilment of the insight implicitly contained in Paul Kennedy's famous book: "The Rise & Fall of Great powers". The author has advocated pragmatic policy to retain the global leadership; "In all of the discussions about the erosion of the American leadership it needs to be repeated again and again that the decline referred to is relative not absolute and is therefore perfectly natural; and that the only serious threat to the real interest of US can come from a failure to adjust sensibly to the newer world order. This was only possible if economic power was dove-tailed with military power. In other words, power and profit must not part company to retain the hegemony. Acquisition of the economic wealth - the rich oil reservoir - first in Saudi Arabia, secondly to gain control over Central Asian oil and gas wealth, Afghanistan route was ensured and now the second most oil rich country Iraq has been added to the Empire as a geo-economic force- multiplier."<<< > I don't think the US has a 'smart bomb' effective against the will of an independent people. We shall see... So far, the US hasn't done too well in any of its major military adventures since WWII --- N.Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. If history or precedent is anything to go by, the present adventure will be another disaster --- not only for the US but especially for all the innocents who will be killed in the pursuit of the US global fantasies.