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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Keith Monahan who wrote (2015)	4/13/2001 11:24:29 PM
From: Abner Hosmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

A friendly dictator will do just fine - much better than an unruly democracy. See our record in Central America for examples. Friendly dictators were supported in countries where the alternatives were Communist puppet state dependencies using Soviet supplied arms and money to export regional instability and warfare in the name of the glorious revolution. Try not to be so cynical and disingenuous. Maybe you've forgotten that the Nicaraguans were bringing in Soviet tanks and Migs with the full blessing of Jimmy Carter before Ronald Reagan put an end to it.

To: Keith Monahan who wrote (2015)	4/13/2001 11:48:44 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 24758

Hi Keith Monahan; Re: " The U.S. is protective of it's interests. A friendly dictator will do just fine - much better than an unruly democracy. See our record in Central America for examples." While the Cold War was going on, the U.S. concentrated on avoiding Soviet world domination. Fortunately for us, the fighting went on in backward corners of the world rather than the Fulda Gap. During that time, it was imperative that the United States gather support against the Communists, and it didn't much matter where it came from. Probably the best example of where the U.S. supported a military dictatorship against a country with an elected government is Pakistan and India. That's the normal condition for wartime. You take the allies that you have, at least until the fighting is over. During WW2, for instance, the U.S. supported the Soviet Union against Finland, as the German (and Japanese) problem dominated foreign affairs. But now that peace is at hand the United States has returned (or is returning) to its tradition of supporting Democracy. I wonder if the absence of the stability enforced by alliances with the United States and the Soviet Union contributed to Pakistan and India pushing their nuclear programs. Now they've got their own MAD, they can have their own peace Glastnost, etc. Re: "It does suggest that political and military intelligence gathering should be intense." I agree, depending on what "intense" means. The secret to international relations is similar to the secret of staying married: "plausible deniablity". You can deny that your submarines were operating close to the other guy's (note that I refuse to use the word "enemy" to describe a country we are at peace with) shores, but when you fly around in the air, it's kind of hard. -- Carl

To: Keith Monahan who wrote (2015)	4/14/2001 12:51:49 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24758

The US stance towards democracies has been pretty consistent the last ten years, hasn't it? Hong Kong is not the same as Taiwan.. It did not have the same pretences as Taiwan had, until recently. And it's early times yet for the Hong Kong arrangement. From what I've read, the Chinese government isn't very enthusiastic about what democracy Hong Kong has. I do notice that the majority of my new neighbors from there haven't gone back. Doesn't mean it won't workout in Hong Kong. But it doesn't mean they're particularly consistent, either. I do notice the Chinese government couldn't even cope with something as hackneyed as Falun Gong (sp?). And what on earth are they doing with Tibet? They can't have got a dime of profit from that; very costly. Not very democratic. So I'm also comparing apples to oranges, perhaps. I'll try harder. Hong Kong arrangement came out of an expiring colonial situation. Present Taiwan came out of a civil war and has to have a much bigger, expansive, political meaning - the folk there have a higher standard of living and are managing their affairs without any arranging by political commissars in Beijing, London or Washington. That seems to smart: Chinese rhetoric about Taiwan is much different than it was about Hong Kong - much more belligerent. I don't blame the Taiwanese for being mighty cautious, if not paranoid, nor their ally, the US. Not long ago a well placed Chinese official stated that democracy was not part of Chinese tradition. So what has been the tradition? Well documented, it has been that of the police state. (They'll talk about Confucianism or whatever, but the practical application was the police state). I'm not knocking them for that. So it was through most of Western history until very recently, with associated rape and pillage of community. Democracy actually does seem to one of the few social improvements we've invented the last few millennia. Once you get it running it does actually seem to work better than alternatives (and real democracies don't seem to go to war against each other very often). By increments, China does seem to be working its way from totalitarianism to something else, but it's not there, yet and it's not a sure thing. frankw PS How do I work the italics and bold functions? TIA