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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (51377)	8/15/1999 8:49:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Beginning to wonder if you ever sleep. Every day, your time... while various persons are decorating this thread with a few hundred posts at a time. I wouldn't say that the expectations of the Russians were the fault of the US. I would say that there seemed to be a rather naive and unrealistic expectation on the part of many Americans that a move away from communism would make everything ok in what was the Soviet Union. Our official response, as I commented once before, was along the lines of singing "ding, dong, the witch is dead" and sending in the carpetbaggers. Would any other response have improved matters? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know. I agree with you about the US Foreign Service, while noting the occasional exception to the rule. One odd trend that I've noticed is that many seem quite decent and reasonable folk when apart from their brethren, but put them with a few other diplomats, and they revert to type with astonishing speed. Without debating the usefulness of any immigrant, I believe it's not usually a case of which ones to take -- most simply come. I'm against that. I was referring to legal immigration; the ones we take voluntarily. Illegal immigration is another story altogether, and something we probably ought to pass a law against. I would think liberals, conservatives and libertarians alike would like to know the full story re. Clinton and China. I suppose we all should, though I'm not convinced that Clinton's policies toward China would be any different if the contributions had not been made. I recall some scandal surrounding contributions made by the Taiwanese to the Reagan campaign, but I don't think that was an issue of buying service, merely an issue of trying to help along someone who already possessed a compatible set of views. It has long been our habit to intervene in foreign political processes in support of candidates we prefer. What's good for the goose is good for the gander... or isn't it? While not agreeing on all specifics of current China policy, I would agree that encouraging economic liberalization within China and building commercial ties between China and the rest of the world is a most desirable goal. Bringing the Chinese economy to the same level of dependence on trade that other Asian economies have would provide us with leverage on Chinese behaviour that does not now exist. The fastest way to radicals into conservatives is to get them involved in commerce. The business bloc in China is emerging as a very real counterweight to the oldline radicals and the PLA - they have money on their side, a factor never to be dismissed - and should be encouraged by all possible means. I am not ready to agree, in advance, that compromise is desirable in every case. Muscling them to the mat also has its place -- as does blowing their heads off, as a last resort. Great deal of precedent for this. It would seem to me that some of our recent head-blowing-off incidents were somewhat less than a matter of last resort. Do we assume also that others are entitled, if they feel pressed beyond tolerance, to try and blow our heads off?