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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (55214)	9/14/2001 4:18:32 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Carl, I agree with everything you said, except this: <I wanted an isolationist America. I didn't get it.> I don't share your opinion here. Let's just say that if America was isolationist back when South Korea was invaded, my family, my relatives and I wouldn't be enjoying the American way of life. Instead, we'd be brainwashed into worshiping Kim Il Sung. We'd also be starving to death. Tenchusatsu

To: Bilow who wrote (55214)	9/14/2001 4:33:23 PM
From: jamok99	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Bilow, <<Hi jamok99; Thanks for the intelligent and sensitive reply.>> I take it that you're being sarcastic. To the extent that your propositions exceeded my capacity for exasperation, I apologize if my tone crossed the boundary of respectfulness. I'm also impressed by your knowledge of history. And your post contains many points that are food for thought. That said, I think we often and sharply disagree on the interpretation of those historic events, and to argue every one of them is probably futile, so I won't continue that debate in detail. For instance, your implication that the North Vietnamese only had the will to succeed because they were backed vigorously by other superpowers might be questioned - when they defeated the (superpower) French at Dien Bien Phu, what was the level of external support? I really don't know, but some of the factors you point to as discouraging to an opposing force (lack of air support) certainly didn't deter their determination. But let's not get bogged down in endless debate details. One thing I would like to address in your most recent post is your underlying assumption which seems to run something like this (correct me if I'm wrong): You don't like the fact, it is brutal, but <<it is sometimes necessary that the stronger party completely dominate the other through the use of force>> as the only effective course of action. In effect, might makes right, period. You seem to base this idea on the 'realities' of the world. I would maintain that to some degree, one creates such 'realities' through the inflexibilities in their vision, and thus either becomes trapped by such 'realities', or has the flexibility to view things from several different 'real' angles. Let me make this concrete - in the 1980's when it was a popular idea among some conservative circles that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable, so let's get it over with, I recall Jeane Kirkpatrick (an ultra-right winger who was our UN Ambassador under Reagan) saying something to the effect that a justification for using force to dislodge Communist regimes was the 'reality' was that there was no instance in the history of the world in which a regime which turned Communist ever was released from this captivity without the use of force. And in fact that was the 'reality' at that time. By that logic, we should have gone to war with the Soviet Union, destroyed hundreds of millions of people, in order to solve our conflicts by the only means possible - brute force. Well, it's a good example, perhaps, of how such monolithic 'realities' may not be so clear-cut, given what has occurred subsequently with our newly-found Eastern European NATO allies. I would also be interested in your reply to a question I posed - Given your belief that overwhelming force ultimately and forever crushes all resistance - If Islamic terrorists were the ones with such force, and applied it to America, would you personally in fact submit to the imposition of Islamic culture, ideals,and interests with the utter resignation you predict our foes will? Your premise that what is common to humanity is complete capitulation in the face of hopelessness suggests you would. Jamok

To: Bilow who wrote (55214)	9/14/2001 6:25:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 275872

In addition, you ignore the voluminous evidence that suggests that the overwhelming winners in warfare don't have to do it again. Did the South rise up again? How long has it been since Mexico has come back for more? Is the U.S. still carrying on a guerilla conflict with Spain? Did Paraguay mess around twice with the Triple Alliance? Are the Argentines still invading the Malvinas? Are the Ghost Dancers still shooting up the settlers? No! I could go on, but I think that's enough. That reminds me of this quote - "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion [that violence never settles anything] is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." Jean V. Debois Starship Troopers Although in this context I think the force should be as carefully directed as it can be without sacrificeing its effectiveness. But the United States has a pretty good history of exporting Democracy by force. In this case, it's our best solution. Germany and Japan where a bit different then Afghanistan or Iraq. They were defeated and humbled, their physical infrstructure was destroyed, but they where more sophisticated and educated then Afghanistan or Iraq. I'm not saying Afghanis or Iraqis are stupid. They are not or atleast they are no more so then other people. But it would be more difficult to forcibly export democracy to them, and if there was enough resentment of the US invasions then the democracies might still vote for leaders that hate the US after we leave. Tim

To: Bilow who wrote (55214)	9/16/2001 2:37:58 PM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Carl:The Palestinians are not completely downtrodden. They (rationally!!!) believe that they will win in the end. They can see that their situation is improving while Israel's situation is getting worse. They can see the "success" of the Taliban in Afghanistan against a world power. So they continue to fight. And that fighting contributes to their plight.. I think the Israel/Palestina problem is worth to discuss, as it is among the roots causing the NY criminal terrorist attack. they will win in the end The vast majority of the Palestitnians wants to live where they lived for centuries (600-1948). Today, they more or less accepted to live in a different territory, but they want to be treated in a non discriminating way, having the same rights as everyone in the territory (internationally recognized) of Israel or in the occupied territory (not recognized as territory) where you find jewish settlements (clearly against international law, which is prohibiting settlements in occupied territory). They can see the "success" of the Taliban in Afghanistan against a world power. I firmly believe that the Taliban case plays a role close to zero for the Palestinians. So they continue to fight. And that fighting contributes to their plight Essentially they are fighting for justice, in a moral way (difficult to define) and in a juridical way, realively clearly defined by UN-resolutions, international law and human rights declaration. In the name of law and justice, we all should be glad if they "win" in the end, as I can't recognize any other source of justice in international matters than the implementation of these laws and the according treaties. All states involved have accepted these laws and signed the treaties and I can't see a reason serious enough for these states not to respect them. In the Palestina problem, all international enforcement of these laws and resolutions is blocked by Israel relying on the help of the US to do so. To study a bit the background (if you are not familiar) I recommend: Le monde diplomatique (highly regarded French magazine about international developments): en.monde-diplomatique.fr en.monde-diplomatique.fr Maybe: cactus48.com which I judge accurate regarding newer history. My source is a well known former Middle-East correspondent for a highly regarded, conservative Swiss newspaper. Unfortunately, his articles are in German, so I think there's little value in providing a link. Another source is a Palestinian friend of mine. He's not a feverish, terroristic fundamentalist. He is working in the management of one of the big five consulting companies. His parents live in Gaza, and his reports are pretty much in accordance of what the correspondent reports. Regards, Boris