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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (7611)	8/3/2004 9:05:29 AM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 20039

Does this mean you're reconsidering your earlier position? Specifically, that you'd have the U.S. continue to give Israel aid if they agreed to comply with a peace mandate where the Palestinians are concerned? No, it is exactly why I made the statement. I'm not happy about us giving aid to Israel under any context. It's not that I don't like Israel particularily, it's just that it's our money and it should be spent here. Lord knows a city like New York could use an extra $4B for infrastructure improvements that have long languished (2nd Ave subway, East Side Access, etc). If the priciple of just giving Israel money isn't bad enough, we actually create more problems for ourselves as a result of our largesse. The 9/11 attacks were initially conceived by an arab who was angry about our support for Israel. In this context, the $4B in aid is extremely troubling. It's not so much that I want to give Israel $4B if they make peace, we're giving them the money anyway, now that they are making war. I just think we should at least get something in return from the Israelies for our money, a more peaceful world and more security for the U.S. as a result, would be worthwhile goals. I really wonder if the U.S. is interested in peace though?!? Peace means arms sales (one of our biggest most lucrative industries) go down significantly. I think most of that $4B in "aid" to Israel is returned back to the U.S. via private routes like military contractors. No wonder we give them the money come hell or high water. We're in on the loop, at least some of us are. There's all sorts of countries we could attack and occupy, funny how it just so happens that the country with the 2nd biggest oil reserves is the one we go after. Right; so how does oil fit into the context of military action in the Philippines, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, and Serbia? Well oil isn't the only resource that motivates us. A lot of times we attack to assert our control over a region, letting them know we can and will attack when necessary. Let them know who's in control. Panama and Serbia certainly fall into this context. Panama was about letting the region know we're in control, and putting our people into power. Serbia was again the fact that we didn't like a country that is part of Europe in such an out of control situation. We let them know we're in control and it reenforced our economic hemogeny over the entire region. Another thing, we didn't occupy those countries afterwards (we already had a presence in Panama). Why didn't we take the extra step of occupying say Serbia? Not enough natural resources for us to be motivated to do so.