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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (118293)	6/5/2005 12:47:05 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 794298

I agree War is hell, BUT nations lose their prominence when they can no longer control events outside their borders. It doesnt appear there will be any world wars again, at least in my lifetime, but there will always be skirmishes with two bit rascals. This particular war is a war on Terrorism and is stateless. Since most terrorists seem to be Muslim from the Middle East, we would be much better off with Democracies there joining us shoulder to shoulder to fight terrorism within their borders. This may be a nasty fight, we may hate to lose lives which seem pointless at first, but in the long run, this may prove to be one of the most JUST WARS we have ever fought. jdn

To: Rarebird who wrote (118293)	6/5/2005 1:00:42 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794298

It is long past time to end this long known tragic sequence. War as a "solution" to problems is obsolete. It is in the face of this fact that President Bush has to decide whether to "gamble" the United States. I see no signs that Bush invaded Iraq for the reasons you suggest. We are besieged by real enemies--the same issue of The Atlantic contains a fictitious war game scenario for dealing with North Korea, a country which presents a real danger. I highly recommend reading it as well. Our choices with respect to rogue states armed with nuclear weapons, principally Iran and NK, are stark. They don't have anything to do with Bush pulling out a Colt 44 at the poker table to avoid the IOUs. Not in ways I can discern, anyway. And your view of history is accurate. Countries do evolve over time after destruction, as we have. But that unfortunately is an obvious point. It doesn't do much to help me think about the future of me and mine. Or how I should prepare for what seems to be a stark economic future. This article, however, makes some good points in this regard. All that has to be done is be like the Boy Scouts--prepared. financeasia.com

To: Rarebird who wrote (118293)	6/5/2005 5:49:14 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 794298

Au contraire, we are living in an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation far surpassing the Industrial Revolution and the Victorian era. The closest comparisons might be the invention of tools and the invention of agriculture. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Wealth redistribution, as practiced by the Communists and the Socialists and advocated by the Progressives, is a zero sum game. You've been brainwashed by leftists into thinking that the creation of wealth must actually involve taking wealth from one person to give to another, and that it must eventually end. The only thing that will end it is the end of creativity. There is no foreseeable end to the creativity of this era. Enjoy it. Don't worry, be happy.