SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Steve Lokness who wrote (51704)7/22/2004 2:30:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
Is the world safer because of the war? I don't feel safer.

Was the world safer prior to 9/11?

Some people thought so.. at least until that day slapped them with some harsh realities..

And when is the last time the US fought a war on its own home soil? We just don't do that if we can avoid it.. We fight it overseas, on the enemies home turf..

And that's what's happening.. Anyone who had an inclination to be a militant is more interested in heading to Afghanistan and Iraq than they are to the US.

There's far more glory, in their minds, to confronting the "infidel" man to man in battle, than in suicide bombings..

And we're giving them the opportunity to do so.. And proving to the rest of the muslim world that the militants have no qualms about killing other muslims to achieve their agenda.

Hawk



To: Steve Lokness who wrote (51704)7/24/2004 8:02:48 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 74559
 
>>> Look at the coalition of the unwilling China, Russia, Germany, France, Canada, Mexico and Spain. <<<<

Would admit that the Bush administration was completely unprepared for "scenario 2" and to trusting to the songs & legends of the Iraqi exile organizations who had their own agenda not exactly coherent with that of the US and were in it for a power grab by using US army services..... and what else ? (unfortunate the US succeeded very well only with the Kurds as they delivered as promissed)

As the countries you mentioned Steve, they all had their own agenda not to go with the US - China wants Taiwan - US opposes – would you agree to the take over of Taiwan by China in exchange of cooperation in Iraq ?

Russia wanted control over the oil fields in Iraq and as such to regain it's position of world economic power as their military is on the ropes in relative terms. The latest YUKOS affair and Russian banking crisis just proves the desires of the current Russian leader – not exactly positive for the world peace and economy

France is not even active part of NATO in their aspiration to fulfill the dream of "Napoleon" and rule Europe France style, which of course CEE countries are adamant against it and the US opposes is obvious – would you cede all of Europe to France for France participation in Iraq? (and keep in mind that Poland, Bulgaria Romania and Ukraine are more than twice the size of France ... so were is the democracy principle of one man one vote ?)

Germany has adopted a pacifist attitude are searching for a future and tend more to ally themselves with Chirac in ruling Europe -- also an millennium old dream.

The countries you mentioned and to prove their own case they tried to gain their own influence on others and the whole issue concentrated not on Iraq - but on who RULES the WORLD and WHO"S say has more weight and WHO THE SUPER POWER IS

If those clashes of highly egocentric ambitions mostly from Europe were not in play then may be the results of the Iraq war would have been a success and stabilizing event.... unfortunate it is not, …. and I only can blame Chirac and Schroeder for their egoistic power grabbing desires which are so evident now in Europe.

Those 2 leaders, Chirac and Schroeder, are very destabilizing political figures in the world political scene and a failure in the economic sense that their fall from power would benefit the world the same way that AG will finally retire or ousted form the FED -