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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (106162)	1/7/2010 5:32:43 AM
From: mishedlo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

Exactly! Mish

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (106162)	1/7/2010 5:33:29 AM
From: mishedlo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

USA Today: Jobs May Rebound In 2010 - OK But Where Will Unemployment Be? globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Mish

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (106162)	1/7/2010 8:36:52 AM
From: axial	1 Recommendation Respond to of 116555

It is true that US support for Islamic resistance in Afghanistan accelerated the growth of radical Islam. It is NOT true that without that support, the movement would have died. We should remember Myanmar, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Somalia --- and more. Remember who killed Anwar Sadat - and why. The last thing Islamic fundamentalists want is rapprochement and peace. What's more, as Pakistan and Afghanistan demonstrate Islamic radicals are feared by moderates, because fundamentalists will kill their more peaceful brethren. "People in the US would do well to learn how to mind their own business." Often true, sometimes not. Compare South Korea to North Korea. Without US leadership and involvement, the Bosnian war could have been much worse. Gulf War I was an example of the US acting properly, with international consensus (and Arab assistance). How far would Soviet Russia have advanced without US opposition? --- With radical Islam, we have a clash of values: right down to non-secular government, education, the place of women in society, the right to vote and democracy. --- The US has acted often acted questionably: in Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada and more. Mark Twain fought bitterly against US imperialism and Manifest Destiny in the Philippines. Even McFarlane came to understand the error of Viet Nam. But what the US wants, and why it acts are not always clear. Ho Chi Minh asked Harry Truman for help in throwing off the yoke of French colonialism: he believed (wrongly) the US was an ally for freedom. Instead the US supported the French. rationalrevolution.net Nobody is saying that the US is always right: not at all. The US has made tragic mistakes, and become an enemy to many. The problem lies in national interests - a key foreign-policy concept, as opposed to principles. Often nobody (not even the American people) knows what is guiding US action. It's a dirty world. But let's not jump to the conclusion that US foreign policy mistakes are the driving force behind radical Islam. No. they're just fuel for the fire: a clash in dozens of countries, sponsored by a militant and radical Islam with global ambitions. For that, the US is not to blame. Jim

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (106162)	1/7/2010 10:11:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Some twisted souls thought this would be a good investment of taxpayer money in order to cause problems for the Soviet Union. It certainly worked. The USSR collapsed as a system within years of pulling out of Afghanistan. But YOU NEED TO REMEMBER.. Pakistan ran the show. Our money, weapons, and training (actually the Pakistanis who trained the Afghans) merely bought us a voice in how the insurgency was carried out. The Pakis were unwilling to risk giving the Russians an excuse to attack Pakistan, so they didn't really permit the US intelligence and/or military to conduct operations within either their country or Afghanistan. And in fact, Americans were PROHIBITED by the Pakistani ISI from having direct contact with Mujahidin groups within Afghanistan. We gave them money, they did the actual training of the Mujahidin. So all this propaganda about the CIA having trained Bin Ladin or that we're responsible for the Mujahidin coming to power is BS. IF Bin Ladin had had a direct connection to the CIA, or Mossad, he'd have NEVER been able to "hook up" with Ayman Zawahiri to form Al Qaida. There would never have been any trust. As has been mentioned previously, I believe, you don't buy allies in Afghanistan (or Pakistan).. You rent them. They have their own agenda and so long as your interests align with theirs, they'll "do business" with you. And the war in Afghanistan is really an extension of the brewing civil war within Pakistan. It's revealing an even greater divergence of interests between Pakistani intelligence and their conventional military. But it's also revealing the corruption that has become rampant there. Look at how much it cost the taxpayers to clean up after their training and support the CIA provided Manuel Noriega. Now it's even more costly to clean up after our US trained jihadi army. Can you quantify that level of support? I mean, George Bush Sr. giving him a tour of the CIA building while he was CIA director is not exactly "support", nor can it be said that $100K a year as an "asset" signifies much in the way of his importance. He was useful, but he was also harmful: www-personal.umich.edu People in the US would do well to learn how to mind their own business. So we shouldn't try and influence events and thereby permit our rivals/enemies to do so instead? The reality is that these petty dictators are for sale to the highest bidder. Either we pay them or our rivals will. Hawk