![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
| 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. |
Thought this would be an interesting thread to spark off since a lot of discussion on the Kosovo thread is really whether or not the U.S. should be intervening in another nations political affairs. This also brings to rise a number of occassions (as pointed out by Christopher Hodgson) of U.S. military interventionism that really has not lead to any appreciably good; no democracies established; my first posting here on the thread. Is NATO just a guise for the U.S. to appear to act as part of a group of nations? 80% of the sorties and over 80% of the military equipment provided in the Kosovo situation is U.S. owned and operated. Who annointed the U.S. as the judge/jury for other countries internal domestic disputes ? Is this "new world" interventionism a dangerous trend possibly re-igniting the cold war and starting others around the globe as nations see a nuclear weapon arsenal as the only means to prevent U.S. agression in the future ? Is this truly a "new world" or does it look alot like the old world of the arms race? As Blair mentioned during the NATO 50th anniv, he hinted that if we can bring the western style of life to the rest of the world then chances are if they think like us they will not harm us. Is this just a candy coated way of saying be assimilated or be destroyed ? Cheers James | ||||||||||||
|
| Home | Hot | SubjectMarks | PeopleMarks | Keepers | Settings |
| Terms Of Use | Contact Us | Copyright/IP Policy | Privacy Policy | About Us | FAQ | Advertise on SI |
| © 2026 Knight Sac Media. Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News |