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: TobagoJack who wrote (71491)	3/5/2011 3:15:14 AM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217942

China IS justified inasmuch as all Empires or Global Economic giants express themselves in a GeoPolitical sense.....pretty much as Jacob has stated IMO... and it is all (again as Jacob has outlined) pretty much a set standard for all Global Economic Powerhouse countries increasing their Sphere of Influence for their own GeoPolitical reasoning..... As usual History repeats... Chas

To: TobagoJack who wrote (71491)	3/5/2011 9:42:53 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217942

well one big difference.. is US had all resources essentially in own backyard.. China much less so... China and Israel similar in that excursions are more local border events.. not so for US... Problem for Israel is that they lost their place in the line and then came back and butted in.. so lots of resentment there.. I can see Israeli side also.. but neither side really working for solution it seems to me.. just a stalemate..

To: TobagoJack who wrote (71491)	3/5/2011 8:06:07 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	7 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217942

<if china is not justified in any of the cross-border engagements since 1949 mentioned by jacob, then israel is not justified in any of the cross-border engagements engaged in since 1947> My neighbor beats his wife, and gets away with it, so it's OK if I beat my wife. Is this the Red Herring Fallacy, or the "two wrongs make a right" Fallacy? Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. An action is defended, on the grounds that someone else has done something similar. Red herring: The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. This Fallacy occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to. fallacyfiles.org nizkor.org don-lindsay-archive.org leo.stcloudstate.edu en.wikipedia.org