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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (91413)	12/15/2004 10:16:21 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"What if, similarly, the War On Terror was largely a scam, and the administration was hyping it to seem larger-than-life? What if our "enemy" represented a real but relatively small threat posed by rogue and criminal groups well outside the mainstream of Islam? What if that hype was done largely to enhance the power, electability, and stature of George W. Bush and Tony Blair?" Here's a better "what if?" - what if we came up with a more ridiculous premise for an article? Now THAT would BE something! What if 3000 Americans and resident aliens were killed in a span of an hour or so by a "hyped" to "seem larger-than-life" but really "relatively small threat"? Are you serious? A "relatively small threat"? Islamic terrorism is a real threat, Grainne, and all the wishing in the world isn't going to reduce it to the "police matter", "nuisance" level that some think it is or should be. This is a force that had several nations firmly in its grip - the most obvious being Afghanistan - and had most of the Arab world either appeasing it, embracing it or allying with it. As for the whole notion of conjuring up "nightmares" as a means to power, that is, of course, a very old theme. There was even a "secret government report" on the subject written in 1967. Perhaps you've read it - "Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace". BTW, the book was a hoax - not a real government report - but I digress. The point is that just because such tactics have been used by certain regimes in history and even fictionalized in Orwell's most famous work (which few here seem to really understand, BTW, but I digress again), that doesn't mean there is not a real threat now. That is simply fallacious nonsense. Ask ionesco - she's the "logical" one. Finally, as for the notion expressed in the article that "Bush and Blair" are conjuring up these "nightmares" to "seek world domination", that is nothing more than a hyperbolic expression of fantasy. I've already addressed the "nightmare" issue, but there is absolutely no evidence that either of these leaders seeks anything more than exactly what they've said they seek - that is to promote peace and end terror by planting the seeds of freedom and democracy in a region long dominated and repressed by tyrants. If you want to read it in Tony Blair's own words, I suggest you read the text of a speech he gave May 30, 2003 in Warsaw, Poland - to a nation of people who know, first hand and from recent experience, what liberation from tyranny means. Here: politics.guardian.co.uk You might also find the Bush administration's National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, enlightening. You can find it on the White House website.

To: Grainne who wrote (91413)	12/15/2004 10:53:16 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Oops, wrong Blair speech. Good one, but not exactly on topic. Here's something you might consider, though: whitehouse.gov Excerpt: Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.