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 : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8700)	6/7/1999 8:46:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Larry, <<I think there is a salient difference. Conservatives tend ot regard rightest authoritarian regimes as the lessor of evils, even though they recognize they may be undesirable. They are frequently regarded as allies of convenience at best, and often as simply handy guys to have around. The left tends to regard leftist governments as desirable- witness the fawning over an aging dictator like Fidel Castro. Mme. Mitterand encapsulated it well when she said, "Ce n'est pas un dictator." I think such blinkered thinking does not generally exist on the right- I personally never heard anyone defend Franco, and the best they could muster about Marcos was he was an anticommunist.>> Frankly, I'm not sure that US support of any brutal right wing regimes was actually ever in this country's political interest, whether it was in SE Asia or Central or South America, where the majority of the cases probably occurred. The creation of South Vietnam in 1954 in order to prevent Ho from being elected was absurd, and was NOT realpolitik, it was a classic case of "blinkered thinking" which ignored the long history of animosity between Vietnam and China, and was a stupid reaction to what was then called "the loss of China". It and most if not all of our mistakes in that area of the world might have been prevented if all of our "left leaning" scholars of that area had not been purged from the universities at the time by the hardline right. And our record in central America from the Panama Canal episodes through Somoza through the sordid actions especially in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 80s (not to mention Nicaragua) does not imply brilliant strategy, it was stupid, cynical and brutal, that is all. I have to cut this short, I'm being called. But I want to add that it is this apparent brutal cynicism of the right (we'll defend me and mine no matter what it does to anyone else) which drives people on the left like me (which is definitely NOT like all people on the so-called left) crazy. It is why Vietnam seemed--and still seems--brutually stupid and wildly crazy, it is why our central and south american adventures are viewed with disgust. More later, perhaps.

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8700)	6/7/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Re Trulock, you wrote in your original post: Notra Trulock, a DOE security officer, testified before Congress that when he warned the administration about Chinese spying in 1995 The notion that he warned "the administration" seems a little quirky to me. Suspicions of spying are reported to and investigated by the FBI, everybody even remotely concerned with secure information knows this. The FBI director is a political appointee, but the agents who receive and investigate suspicions of espionage are career people with no connection to any administration. Suspicions of spying at DOE would not be taken directly to "the administration". They would be first evaluated in house. If warranted, the appropriate FBI office would be brought in. If investigation turned up hard evidence of espionage, the whole issue would be elevated, people from CIA and military intelligence would be brought in, and a formal assessment of the damage done and of the potential for using a known or suspected spy as a conduit for passing false information would begin. It would very likely be only at this level that the affair would be brought to the attention of "the administration". The notion of a DOE security official breaking out of normal counterintelligence channels and going directly to "the administration" - names conveniently unnamed - seems a bit off, and I have to suspect that there are political considerations involved. They are frequently regarded as allies of convenience at best, and often as simply handy guys to have around. It has been repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated that right wing dictatorships were not only ineffective tools against Communism, but actually encouraged and promoted extreme left insurgencies. Our continued support of these regimes in the face of overwhelming evidence that our purpose was not being achieved - and that we were in many cases aiding our enemies - can most charitably be called a result of blinkered thinking. the best they could muster about Marcos was he was an anticommunist. Marcos did as much to bring the economy under State control as many avowed socialists have in other countries. Between his declaration of martial law and the time he was deposed the communist insurgency grew from 200 armed men operating in 4 provinces to 25,000 armed insurgents, with 40,000 under training, operating in every corner of the country and on the verge of bringing the government armed forces to a stalemate. An odd sort of anticommunist. Six years after his departure, under a President the American right criticized as "soft on communism", the insurgency was a spent force. A lesson to be learned there. when the state/party has re-written the history and conciousness of a nation, when it controls the means of communication and has driven out the private sector, the demise of the reigning tyrant is rarely sufficient to usher in a new age. The only Communist states I can think of that have not either dumped Communism or embarked on a phased transition out of it are Cuba and North Korea. In many cases the demise of the reigning tyrant has not even proven necessary, nor was invasion from outside. How do you support the notion that Communism is so durable, and takes control so efficiently? Whether of not China is near to attaining "nuclear parity" (whatever that means) with the US is completely irrelevant to whether or not their spying is a security concern and has no bearing on the question of should or should not the PRC be treated as an essentially friendly power. Why would you ask such a question? I ask that question because it seems clear to me that a concerted effort is being made to paint China as an enemy and as a direct threat to the security of the United States. The motivation seems to be political, and pathetically short-sighted. They want to accuse the current administration of consorting with the enemy, and in order to do this they have to create an enemy. China is not a friendly power. Neither is it an enemy. It is a country in transition, and our long term economic and security interest clearly lies in encouraging and promoting that transition. Treating China as an enemy can only retard that transition and encourage those who want to reverse it. This is clearly contrary to our interest, and to embark on such a policy for purely political purposes seems downright stupid. I would like to see a Republican President succeed the current regime - preferably one with a conservative fiscal policy, an open-minded and moderate foreign policy, and a thoroughly laissez faire attitude toward "social issues". But the American right frustrates me intensely. They harp incessantly on the shortcomings and sins of "the Clintonistas", but I see no effort at all being made to articulate a clear and viable alternative; to tell us what their policies would be and why they would work. This seems to me to be a lousy way to approach an election and an even worse way to approach governance. My feeling is that the Republicans are taking this course because it allows them to avoid the inherent conflict between voters like me - fiscally conservative but socially liberal - and the religious right, which controls a large minority bloc of votes but demands policies that are totally unacceptable to most Americans. Clinton-bashing may be the only thing these two groups can agree on, but avoiding the issue won't make it go away. All this bitching is taking on a wimpy overtone that I dislike. I want to hear a lot less about what the Democrats have done wrong and a lot more about cogent and practical alternatives.