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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (273131)	10/8/2008 5:42:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793980

Nadine, you are right that Saddam was Islamic and went to his death muttering Islamic incantations. But his relationship with Islam was comparable with Bill Clinton's relationship with Christianity - clutching a bible, wearing a sanctimonious look, with copies of Walt Whitman to give to women he fancied to fondle in the vestry. Bill didn't turn the other cheek, he wagged the dog. It was to support his personal interests and lust for power. George Bush isn't one for turning cheeks either. I'm not much of a theologian but rumour has it that Jesus didn't pray for his Dad to give what-oh to the Roman legions. He was more in the way of a pacifist. Those seeking unbridled power wear their religion lightly, like a cloak of fine raiment to cover their naughty bits, give credibility and a fine look. Yes, Saddam paid for terrorist actions such as Palestinian attacks including bombing the American University. How to handle that was the question. I gave an excellent solution at the time. It's quite reasonable to talk politely and quietly to the rulers of Pakistan rather than put an advertisement in the New York Times about what's required to get Osama. John McCain's approach is some tricky dicky "if I told you I'd have to kill you" secret tactics-not-strategy approach which you'd think he could have passed on to Bush if it's such a great idea. Yeah right!! McCain is taking an appeasement approach. If Pakistan says "Get lost", they have taken over where the Taleban in Afghanistan left off = backing, protecting and supporting Osama. There has never been a 100km high nuclear explosion. It would be quite enlightening lightning. It could be live on TV so we could all share in the scene as we did on 911 when umpty million people saw the Twin Towers collapse onto thousands of people. Osama is interested in eliminating nuclear weapons. So far, their use has been quite persuasive, for example getting Japan to see the light in WWII and MAD perhaps kept other conflicts in limbo. More important than eliminating nuclear weapons is making them irrelevant. My neighbours and I don't "keep the peace" among us by having nuclear weapons, guns, knives or fists. We have our private property and our co-operative efforts. We have a supranational constitution and enforcement so that there's no inclination to go nuclear. On a grander scale, the USA has many states and a suprastate constitution to keep things civil. It's a bit of a socialist, leftie, busy-body, kleptocratic nanny-state constitution so it's unsuitable for supranational purposes. The Eurozone might be a better model with sovereignty residing mostly with local yokel traditional countries. But even there, the Euro rulers have too much power. I'd first aim for a reconstitution of the UN. It's just a bureaucratic ineffectual "peace-keeper" pontificating on CO2 and stuff instead of doing the real stuff of keeping the peace for which it was formed [of course if CO2 is an issue then protecting the commons makes it a UN topic but it's not]. Mqurice