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: critical_mass who wrote (10147)	10/15/2006 7:42:41 PM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 218505

Interesting reading of recent history, thanks for posting that link. Tends to sound quite a bit like Lyndon LaRouche. Seems to have the Russian viewpoint, or at least what Russia would like the world to believe about Russia. For instance, "Churchill entices Russia into what became the Cold War...." forgeting Russia grabed many nations in Eastern Europe. We have Khodovkousky as a Washington backed pawn. I don't think the Russians need any lessons in political intrigue from the US, the whole oligarch / central government struggle would go on independent of what the US did. The oligarchs have spent lots of money to buy favorable press in the West, not ot mention football (soccer) teams. Almost every mention of his has Russia as a passive presence, things happen to Russia, Russia gets manipulated into X action, Russia tricked by Y strategy. This just doesn't match reality. Many of these events happen well outside the Yeltsin period, when such inaction was common. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia wanted to join NATO for very obvious reasons, the Clinton administration had refused this for a long time. ****** More importantly, he doesn't strongly differentiate between US forces in the Persian Gulf - something that has been US policy (at least on the Naval side) for a long time, since Gulf War 1. A US presence in the Gulf has been desired by various nations - Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates - to varying degrees at various times. So US forces maybe unwanted, but they aren't exactly univited (Ask Kuwait) While the forces are there to protect US strategic interests, this is usually done by keeping the peace, allowing trade to occur. He claims that Cheney and friends planned and initiated the war in Iraq well prior to 2000, and this is a useful prespective. I expect this is true, that the goal was to get Iraq as a client state, have it pump a lot of oil to act as a lever on both Iran and Saudi Arabia. What is intersting is how far the oil majors have stayed away for Iraq, Cheney and PNAC. I expect the plan now is to separate iraq into 3 client states, each of which is likely to need outside help maintaining independence and a viable economy. I expect that will at least work in Kurdistan.