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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChrisJP who wrote (53256)	7/11/2006 12:31:45 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped driving gas guzzler SUV's.

To: ChrisJP who wrote (53256)	7/11/2006 1:25:47 PM
From: Jim Fleming	Respond to of 116555

<Terrorism is a result of our stupid policy decisions and our meddling in other countries affairs.> World powers are involved in the affairs of other countries by definition. It would be wiser if the world power took the trouble to find out what it was getting involved in and the possible consequences. I agree with the general objectives of what Mish suggested. Something like that will evolve if the world doesn't destroy itself in the meantime. Jim

To: ChrisJP who wrote (53256)	7/11/2006 10:32:55 PM
From: Webster Groves	Respond to of 116555

<I mean its not like mid-East terrorism started with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. It was around during the 72 Olympics and I'm sure earlier than that.> When the other guy kills your civilians or soldiers, it's now called terrorism. When you kill the other guy's civilians, it's called "collateral damage". So, to be respectful of semantics, what is "terrorism" depends on your point of view. As far as the US is concerned, terrorism did not begin until the end of the Cold war. The first attack on the WTC and the subsequent attack on the Cole came only after the "USSR lost the cold war". Strange coincidence, but perhaps, after "vanquishing one enemy", the US needed another to justify it's world military presence. After all, without an enemy. why do we need large military expenditures. Looked at in this light, the rise of "terrorism" came at an opportune time. Defense budgets are bigger than ever, fear in the populace is greater than in WWII, and we look to our beloved President to save us from this evil. How very fortunate we are that we have a Decider willing to undertake this burden. wg PS - apologies to George Orwell for unattributed comments