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: Hawkmoon who wrote (70904)	2/8/2011 9:18:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217631

It's debatable whether the Pearl Harbour attack was really the start of the conflict between the USA and Japan. <If we hadn't violated our neutrality by selling (trading?) arms for bases to the British, maybe the Japanese wouldn't have been persuaded to attack us and drag us into the war. > Japan had been expanding into Manchuria, Taiwan and developing a bit of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, which wasn't always welcome in China. I'd have to get the details from Google, but the USA started forming a military encirclement to the extent of blockade. While blockade is theoretically not an actual attack, stand-over tactics with threats are near enough for government work. When the USSR installed ICBMs in Cuba, it was considered enough of a threat that the USA would have attacked them if the USSR hadn't ceased and desisted. While I didn't believe there were WMDs in Iraq, it seemed a reasonable thing for the UN's COW to invade and conquer Iraq for the reasons you give. But it wasn't my preference - it seemed to be just more of 19th century style geopolitical skirmishing. I'd like to see structural thinking advancement to a NUN [not of the Big Brother variety but a heavily circumscribed federal system] with a switcheroo of citizenship so that states become the property of the citizen rather than the citizen being the property of the state. Tradable Citizenship. Democracy is not the same thing though it could lead to Tradable Citizenship if people got the idea so it's a step in the right direction. A lot of Arabs would like that. <what's wrong with the Israelis pursuing the same against blatantly Authoritarian/Totalitarian regimes, especially when those regimes incessantly threaten it's utter destruction? > Polls of Arabs show they are okay with being part of Israel and do NOT want to have their towns redrawn on the map as being part of a new Palestine. One of the ways Islam expanded so greatly was by offering the hordes at the bottom of the heap a way out from the depredations of the local megalomaniacs. That's to a great extent how the British Empire expanded so greatly too. Bribery works wonders. Becoming a British Subject, just like the English, was a great deal for Maoris who would otherwise likely end up as dinner for a neighbouring tribe otherwise. India did well from the British investments and development. When Britain left, the place ground to a halt in the economic development stakes. In the same way, I have done very well from the American empire. A NUN of Tradable Citizenship states would be my preference. Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (70904)	2/8/2011 5:40:06 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217631

Hawk, Possibly back then the US still had leaders with the long view in mind ..You realise (Canuck spelling :O) that that is one of the things that made the US .. forget their warts.. but you guys were blessed with a good enough number of leaders with the long view.. Where would the US be eventually with the Reich on one side supported by the vast raw material wealth of Russia, Africa, and the Middle East.. and Japan supplied by the sane wealth of Asia, eastern Russia and Australia.. SA would have been next target..