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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (176235)	11/29/2005 2:13:32 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, while it's true that Japan directly attacked the USA in a big surprise <I believe that's the last time the US was directly attacked by an enemy. > I consider a blockade to be a direct attack, equivalent to a kidnapping, and the USA had blockaded Japan = forcibly stopping trade. But Japan had initiated hostilities by attacking China, Korea etc. However, China etc had been invaded by Europeans so Japan was resisting that process. But before that ... oh my view into the past is getting misty with confusion of constant geopolitical territorial conquests. Japan should perhaps have simply withdrawn from their conquered territories when the USA blockaded them. But egocentric militaristic megalomaniacs aren't given to being reasonable. Okay, you can get some leverage out of a comparison of the growth of Islamic fascism with Adolf's Nazis growing in the 1920s and 1930s. It's a reasonable comparison, though Adolf's one was a temporal materialistic dominance hierarchy rather than a superstitious kleptocratic priesthood. I think you have already waited: <I don't want to wait until the equivalent of a Hitler or Tojo rises amongst the Islamic Militants and gains complete control over a sovereign country. The toll in blood and treasure would FAR EXCEED what is currently being spent now..> The Iranians have already elected Mr Nuke Israel. But they only want to have nukes for peaceful energy purposes. What is hilarious is that I have tried explaining to people that it is absurd to think that Iran wants nuclear power stations for energy when they are spending $billions on a pipeline to India. If they want energy, they have already got much much more than they can use and at a much much cheaper price than a nuclear power station. I was unable to convince them that Iran is up to no good with their nukes programme. I suppose they are the same people who couldn't read the writing on the wall in regard to Adolf's intentions until their backs were against it. Iran says, officially, "Death to America", "Death to Jews and Israel". Well, that sounds like a declaration of war to me. I would consider that sufficient to obliterate Iran or conquer it and make it more civilized, like Japan or Germany. It certainly doesn't seem the sort of place I'd allow to get hold of "Islamic nukes". Pakistan has them already. It would be reasonable to disarm Pakistan too. Pakistan already was dealing with Libya to expand the holdings of "Islamic nukes". North Korea was in on the game. When people say they want to kill you, it's reasonable to take them at their word and do something about it. Such as kill them first. I have never heard Americans say Iran should be wiped off the map. Well, let me be the first to suggest it. Tit for tat and all that. They want to destroy the USA. Why not the USA destroy them first? Pretending Islam is a religion of peace is absurd when one takes a glance around the Islamic world. Their ideology is that apostates, unbelievers, infidels and heathens are for the knife across the throat. Which is how Catholics were and most religions in medievil days. Aztecs were enthusiastic heart hackers. It's what the superstitious do. They like blood, gore, gold and girls [preferably young]. Simple tastes! Simple ideology. They should be taken at their word. The USA was absolutely insane to have supported Osama and Islamic Jihad against Gorby and the fizzling USSR. Gorby should have been supported. I haven't seen an American yet realize and say "ooops, sorry Gorby, our bad". Having dealt with Gorby [as far as Afghanistan was concerned], they turned their attentions to the Great Satan. What a suprise! Hey presto, the Twin Towers fell. Blowback! Directly caused by helping Islamic Jihad defeat Gorby and who was trying to civilize Afghanistan, or at least resolve a bad situation he had inherited. The USA fomented the mess in Afghanistan. Osama and co took advantage of what the USA created. Come to think of it, the USA was not exactly promoting democracy in Iran with support of the Shah either. Nor in Saudi Arabia. Hmmm, sources of Islamic Jihad in each instance. Hawk, you misunderstood what I said would be the role of a NUN, the NUN president and how said president would gain their position of temporary and limited trust. <And while I don't seek to see a "global president" emerge out of the UN, were that to be the case, it still would not detract from the necessity of the government's policies having an "enforcement" capability.. a global police, if you will. We would never permit a totalitarian political party to dismantle the US political system (or I hope not), were they elected. And we should not permit non-democratic states in the United Nations from being able to subvert the goals of creating democracy throughout the world. > Of course a NUN enforcing borders would need a military mechanism along with financial, trade and other mechanisms to enforce agreed borders. Where did you get the idea that a NUN president would have any say in the USA's internal political machinations? How would a non-democratic state have any say in the NUN when We the Sheeple directly elect said NUN. We don't need no stinking government to decide for us who runs the global commons and ensures borders are kept tight. Mqurice