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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scoobah who wrote (19550)	1/18/2007 10:38:46 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 32591

Sounds like a strategy to me! :-)

To: Scoobah who wrote (19550)	1/18/2007 12:03:49 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

It seems to me Bush is using "gun-boat diplomacy" and a show of force and telling Iran that US's MIGHT is RIGHT!!! and that Ï am a cowboy and I shoot as I damn well please." To be sure, the US is acting like a bully. Not surprising as in the past (late 1900s) America had bullied the native Indians into submission and the Filipinos briefly in the early 1900s. Then the US and allies tried to bully North Korea in 1950. But North Korea fought them with the help of Mao Zedong's Chinese "volunteers" to a standstill in 1951 and the creation of the "38th Parellel" and the ongoing truce. (The war is not officially over.) Next, the US under Lyndon Johnson used Johnson's "Gulf of Tonkin" ploy to declare war on Vietnam. No doubt, the US thought that the war would be a cinch and victory assured in short order. However that war dragged on for about 10 years! Not only did Johnson get his nose bloodied, he was too embarrassed to stand for re-election and he died of a heart attack. His successor, Nixon, did not have much success either. The Vietnam war dragged on as long as it did because neither president wanted to be the first president to lose a war. It was left to President Gerald Ford, the unelected and "caretaker" president, who didn't mind "losing" that war by negotiating for a so-called "honourable withdrawal". Now Bush is desperate just like Johnson and Nixon were. Too proud to withdraw despite being encouraged to do so by his fellow Americans, he wants to escalate the war and leave it to his successors to pick up the pieces. It seems to me what is uppermost in his mind is to show I AM NOT THE FIRST PREZ TO LOSE A WAR, I AM NO QUITTER!!! Be that as it may, there will be, as ever, horrendous consequences. If the Muslims are not as good and resourceful and as determined fighters as the North Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese fighters were, they will likely lose. But even if they lose, they could hurt America during the war and even after it is over. According to Henry Kissinger, the nation that controls the world's fuel controls the world. And both Nixon and Kissinger had already considered in the early 1980s that control of the Iranian Straits of Hormuz would be a grand "prize". So it is very understandable why the US and that "has-been" superpower, Britain, want to go after the oil wealth of the Middle East. Britain is desperate to get a share of the oil because its present North Sea oil is fast being depleted and when it is gone, Britain will be worse off than now. In the good old days, the colonizing powers needed no excuses to grab the wealth of nations unable to defend themselves. At that time, MIGHT was RIGHT!!! However, today, the US and Britain feel the need to to gain support by foisting upon an unsuspecting public all sorts of plausible reasons for the so-called War on Terror when in actual fact that is just a cover for going after the oil loot!!! .