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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (9389)	9/18/2006 11:38:39 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217711

... silly me, and here I thought it was a simple invasion, ala Poland way back when. Yean.. kind of like Tibet.. eh? That's the better comparison to Hitler's invasion of Poland.. And what Bejing previously had (and may still have) planned for Taiwan.. That would be a good comparison to Austria and the Sudetenland.. This difference, TJ, is that Saddam was under UNSC binding sanctions. He was unanimously declared in material breach of a cease-fire by the UNSC and violating the terms of his "parole" over having invaded Kuwait in 1990. Compare that to China having blatantly invaded a peaceful nation like Tibet, and annexing it in an act of territorial expansion, especially in light of the atmosphere of decolonization that was taking place right after WWII. So let's not be so eager to throw stones here TJ.. And while a few of those UNSC members disagreed as to how to resolve the breach, there were more nations signing on for Saddam's overthrow than signed on for kicking him out of Kuwait in 1991. ... processing ... is an interest word, displayed in front of an old concept. I think the world now knows what evil happens in processing. Yep.. detention and further questioning.. The abuses at Abu G took place in the most secure area of that prison, not in the general population, where most of them were housed in tents. We just basically held them until we could be convinced that either their threat had ended, or we were not able to discover sufficient evidence against them to warrant holding them. Granted.. it wasn't extremely efficient, and often not fair, but if we captured someone in the company of a known terrorist leader/member, it was generally presumed detention for at least 3-6 months was warranted, especially if their rationale for being in the Subject's presence didn't passs the "smell" test. Far better than just releasing them back into the population and assisting in preserving the terrorist cell.. Now let's get back to this "simple invasion" BS.. The majority of Iraqis being killed, maimed, or beaten, is not due to Coalition operations. All you have to do is merely go to "Iraq Body Count" to see who's doing the killing.. the Jihadists/Militant Muslims.. You have them on the Sunni side, as well as the Shi'a side, and they are both killing one another. Kind of like what would happen in China were there to be a popular revolt/revolution against your Chinese Communist apparachiks.. They would fight to retain the previous power and domination they previously held.. The Chinese "way" to democracy will GUARANTEE that the existing power elite NEVER lose their grasp on power. You cannot shake loose the grip of power by such a political caste without some political and economic disruption and not "crisis".. Hell, you're Chinese and you know the ideogram for "crisis" consists of the symbols for "danger" and "opportunity".. So for you to assert that China will transition to Democracy without a crisis (preferably non-violent) is foolishness. And that's what we have in Iraq.. Danger and Opportunity, all in one. breakoutofthebox.com Hawk