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 : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (17894)	3/26/1999 1:01:00 AM
From: Druss	Respond to of 18691

Roger--I can't agree more with you on the 'war euphoria'. The whole thing sickens and saddens me. Whether or not NATO pilots escape unscathed the sad truth is people are dying. Their lives are lost and their loss is felt forever in the survivors. It is all sad to me. We seem to fight wars to stop wars now. Got to be a better way. All the Best Druss

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (17894)	3/26/1999 6:55:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 18691

Roger, though I wouldn't call Serbia "defenseless", I agree that this is nothing to be euphoric about. By coming to the defense of an oppressed majority at risk of being slaughtered by an army known for atrocities, we also aid another band of "freedom fighters" who are not exactly "diversity aware". In the process, we create a backlash of anti-American sentiment spreading from Southern Europe and Russia to as far away as China. We have a potentially unstable Russia torn between its economic need for ties with and aid from the west, and nationalist opposition figures fanning the flames of discontent with talk of burning down all American embassies and consulates and even "let's bomb Washington" (Zhirinovsky). In Russia, you also have a nation that was once a true "Superpower", but has seen that power slip away (due to the collapse of an empire and economic hardship) to the point where the only thing left that makes them a superpower is nuclear weapons. In China, they worry where next we might take it upon ourselves to intervene against perceived injustices (Tibet?) or interfere in other matters they consider internal affairs (Taiwan). Both Russia and China also see NATO's action, without UN approval, as an American/Western challenge to their status on the Security Council. All in all, this is an incredibly dangerous step we have taken. Intervening to stop a conflict from spreading to neighboring nations - one of our professed reasons for action - may, in fact, encourage its spread. Does this make it wrong or immoral? I don't think so. But, I do think that if we had leaders (and I use that term loosely) who stood for something beyond self gratification, our leaders might have been able to settle this without more killing. I get this feeling that we look like some childish bully who doesn't know any way to get people to listen other than through violence and threats. Well, have a good weekend. Bob PS: On a lighter note - Go DUKE!!!