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: Jim Willie CB who wrote (134566)	5/27/2004 11:50:29 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

why dont you stand up for NATO, as a retired military man? Hi Jim, Long time no see. I don't understand that question. I have always been an advocate for NATO. It is the UN that has become nearly useless imo. not a single thing about this war is going as planned Should be no surprise there. That is the nature of the beast...Always has been. do you really think no officers, no majors, no generals gave orders "to do anything to get them to talk" ??? I was among those (if not the first) to point out that the leap from Buck Sergeant to 2 Star general to Asst SecDef was out of whack. I said the chain of command does not function that way. There are too too many holes that must be filled. I also said our military is has the tools and is very well organized to handle this...and they are getting the job done quite well so far. We are close....just not perfectly aligned. :o) uw

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (134566)	5/28/2004 10:23:28 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

a real big objection I have about certain bad wars is the motivation to lose 10x more lives, "so that those who died, did not die in vain" Which might be just as valid as my objection against ignoring certain international security threats until they actually require the deaths of millions to quash... Example: Failure to confront Communism in 1917, and failure to confront Nazism during the '30s. Or more recently, failure to confront Pol Pot, or the genocides in Ruwanda.. But I do grant you that were it not for the dependence by the global economy upon the oil of the mid-east, there would be less inclination to view Islamic militancy as an international threat. But such dependence is a reality, not just for the US, but for the rest of the industrialized(ing) world. And that's a significant economic resource that not only the West has an interest in preserving, but that the militants also have an interest in controlling as a weapon against the Western economies And never forget that Jim... The Militants want that oil under their control just as badly as the Western nations. They need it to finance their Jihad, just as much as we need it to power our economies. Hawk