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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (226024)	3/23/2005 9:13:25 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572604

Re: I don't really see growing corruption.... Think about it Ted. If you have to face a powerful enemy you have less margin for error. I don't think anyone on this thread needs any more proof that you are a blithering idiot. First, corruption is endemic in the Bush Crime Family: warprofiteers.com Second, the "war on terror" is something only an idiot like you would be sucker enough to fall for: commondreams.org Tiny Tim, you are disgustingly ignorant of how the world works. I'm surprised you dare to embarrass yourself on a public forum with your elementary-school analysis of life.

To: TimF who wrote (226024)	3/24/2005 12:20:56 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572604

But there isn't the will to do that. Its speaks to growing corruption How? I don't really see growing corruption , but assuming its there how does the lack of "putting people on a diet" to "support increasing our capabilities" "speak to" such corruption? An unwillingness to go on a 'diet' fiscal or otherwise, growing corruption.......are both possible symptoms of imperial overreach. Its just as much of a factor when you are dealing with a powerful enemy as it is when you are dealing with a weak one. In fact its more likely to be a problem when you are dealing with a powerful enemy. Nonsense.....utter and complete nonsense. Think about it Ted. If you have to face a powerful enemy you have less margin for error. You might actually suffer grave consequences. If you spend to much against a week enemy than you waste a bit, if you spend too little you might suffer consequences that you don't like, but either way its small compared to spending too much or too little against a powerful enemy, where spending too much can really hurt your economy in a major way, and spending too little can potentially have devistating results. No Tim, what I meant was that its not necessary to spend as much on defense against a non existent enemy as a opposed to an powerful one that is real and poses a threat. That's pretty straightforward logic. The capabilities of your enemies and potential enemies are relevant when you are deciding the question "are we putting more in to the military than we should", but they are not relevant to the question "are we putting more in to the military than we can sustain", which is the question that the concept of "imperial overstretch" deals with. The latter is relevant when the emperor is making up your enemies as he goes along. Which isn't the case here. Yes, it is. Tim, if you don't understand what's going on, then its very difficult to have a reasonable discourse. Timeline: Bush takes office in 2001. We had no known official enemies. 9/11 happens in 2001. Al Qa'ida claims responsibility. In 2002, we attack Afghanistan looking for bin Laden. We don't find bin Laden but suddenly there is talk of the axis of evil......per Bush, Iran, Iraq, Syria and NK are now our sworn enemies. Bush chose these nations to be our enemies out of all the potentially dangerous nations in the world. In 2003, we invade Iraq. As I said, the emperor makes up our enemies as he goes along. ted