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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (52180)	9/15/2001 2:25:30 AM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Jacob, someone e-mailed me a column and it makes more sense than anything I've read. Please read the original on the web site after registering for free. The last paragraph is the [incredibly difficult] way to deal with this. Smoking or Non-Smoking? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN JERUSALEM -- If this attack on America by an extensive terrorist cell is the equivalent of World War III, it's not too early to begin thinking about what could be its long-term geopolitical consequences. Just as World Wars I and II produced new orders and divisions, so too might this war. What might it look like? Israel's foreign minister, Shimon Peres, offers the following possibility: Several decades ago, he notes, they discovered that smoking causes cancer. Soon after that, people started to demand smoking and non-smoking sections. "Well, terrorism is the cancer of our age," says Mr. Peres. "For the past decade, a lot of countries wanted to deny that, or make excuses for why they could go on dealing with terrorists. But after what's happened in New York and Washington, now everyone knows. This is a cancer. It's a danger to us all. So every country must now decide whether it wants to be a smoking or non-smoking country, a country that supports terrorism or one that doesn't." Mr. Peres is on to something - this sort of division is going to emerge - but we must be very, very careful about how it is done, and whom we, the U.S., assign to the smoking and non-smoking worlds. As Mr. Peres himself notes, this is not a clash of civilizations - the Muslim world versus the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish worlds. The real clash today is actually not between civilizations, but within them - between those Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews with a modern and progressive outlook and those with a medieval one. We make a great mistake if we simply write off the Muslim world and fail to understand how many Muslims feel themselves trapped in failing states and look to America as a model and inspiration. "President Lincoln said of the South after the Civil War: 'Remember, they pray to the same God,'" remarked the Middle East analyst Stephen P. Cohen. "The same is true of many, many Muslims. We must fight those among them who pray only to the God of Hate, but we do not want to go to war with Islam, with all the millions of Muslims who pray to the same God we do." The terrorists who hit the U.S. this week are people who pray to the God of Hate. Their terrorism is not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. policy. Indeed, they made no demands. Their terrorism is driven by pure hatred and nihilism, and its targets are the institutions that undergird America's way of life, from our markets to our military. These terrorists must be rooted out and destroyed. But it must be done in a way that doesn't make us Osama bin Laden's chief recruiter. Because these Muslim terrorists did not just want to kill Americans. That is not the totality of their mission. These people think strategically. They also want to trigger the sort of massive U.S. retaliation that makes no distinction between them and other Muslims. That would be their ultimate victory - because they do see the world as a clash of civilizations, and they want every Muslim to see it that way as well and to join their jihad. Americans were really only able to defeat Big Tobacco when whistleblowers within the tobacco industry went public and took on their own industry, and their own bosses, as peddlers of cancer. Similarly, the only chance to really defeat these nihilistic terrorists is not just by bombing them. That is necessary, but not sufficient, because another generation will sprout up behind them. Only their own religious communities and societies can really restrain and delegitimize them. And that will happen only when the Muslim majority recognizes that what the Osama bin Ladens are leading to is the destruction and denigration of their own religion and societies. This civil war within Islam, between the modernists and the medievalists, has actually been going on for years - particularly in Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. We need to strengthen the good guys in this civil war. And that requires a social, political and economic strategy, as sophisticated, and generous, as our military one. To not retaliate ferociously for this attack on our people is only to invite a worse attack tomorrow and an endless war with terrorists. But to retaliate in a way that doesn't distinguish between those who pray to a God of Hate and those who pray to the same God we do is to invite an endless war between civilizations - a war that will land us all in the smoking section. nytimes.com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (52180)	9/15/2001 3:39:20 AM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

We can only lead by example That is certainly a valid point of view. But I wonder whether the limited slice of America that they might have encountered, if any, really corresponds to the ideals you have mentioned of "equality of men and women, equality for all races, religious tolerance and the rule of law". When I got to Afghanistan in the sixties, the driver of the van who had agreed to transport us from Istanbul to New Delhi, an American by the name of Gary, decided instead to stay in Herat, Afghanistan to "have the van repaired". I later learned that repairing the van meant having the door lined with hashish and driving it back to Germany. In Kabul, the most conspicuous westerners were the morphine addicts shooting up in the doorways of fleabag hotels not far from the Intercontinental. For them Kabul's main draw was the fact that they could buy morphine over the counter at any drugstore. They were not exactly the best ambassadors of western values. I left as soon as I could find a bus going toward Peshawar. So the drug addicts and hippies came through Afghanistan in the sixties followed by the Russian soldiers in the seventies. So much for western role models. I don't know if there are many satellite dishes in Afghanistan these days but I wonder how many Madison Avenue ad execs we will need to change their image of the west? Thanks for that critique of the Tom Friedman editorial. It's spot on. Sam

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (52180)	9/15/2001 11:02:55 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

> Now, I'm sure someone can come up with some intricate, carefully reasoned explanation for why this is all the fault of the CIA and Exxon. Jacob, you have a point here. The people of those countries bare some responsibility for their plights. And in fact, had we left them alone, by now they would have figured out what it is that they should be doing. At the very least, they would not have seen US as the source of their problems. The problem is this. Just as there is no perfect mate to marry, there are no perfect international partners. Many of these countries had leaders that leaned (to varying degrees) in the direction of fixes you are suggesting. But those same leaders were not as profitable (though not necessarily hostile) to the short term US interests. So the state department had a choice, "do I support a corrupt dictatorship who to be in power is willing to sell out his country and kill every nonamerican voice (among other voices), or do we let a more moderate leader come to power who leans away from the US". The answer to them is obvious; "the hell with the world. Mr. X is more profitable to us NOW and that is whom we support regardless of what he does inside his country". So while you are rightly identifying the cause of their misery as lack of education and governmental corruption, you are missing on the point that we failed to support the less corrupt and more independent leaders of those countries because they would not sell out as easily. Had we allowed, dare I say encouraged, democracy and American values in spite of the almighty $, there would have been more established countries around the world. Those citizens would have been happier people and would not be driven to desperate acts. Their improved economies, though initially at a cost to us, would now be able to support purchase of more advanced goods from America. So net-net we all would have come out winners. Yes we want a world in peace and harmony without hunger or brutal dictatorships. But we do not want it if it means a corporate loss for the big business. Gottfried posted a good article from NY Times. At the end of it says, This civil war within Islam, between the modernists and the medievalists, has actually been going on for years - particularly in Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. What is interesting in there, is countries they are naming as the hotbeds of the conflict: Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. All of them for years have had governments that have been extremely pro US. About 10 years ago (may be 12), the people of Algeria exercised their democratic rights to vote for an Islamic government. Guess what happened? The party was outlawed. There have been no elections. And the country has been in a state of emergency since. Anyone reminded of Chili? As an American, how do you feel about that? Do you believe in democracy? Do those people have the right to choose their government even if that government is not to our liking? Pakistan (along with Iran and others) used to be a member of CENTO. CENTO was sold as a military treaty between America and the regional countries, similar to NATO. It became obvious that the United States had no intention of keeping its end of the bargain (i.e. should you be attacked, we are all in it together and give you any support we can). That would be in direct conflict with the pursuit of almighty $ as the defense industry would lose a lot. There were leaders in the CENTO countries who naively thought they do not need to purchase too much arms from the US. To their surprise boarder skirmishes and foreign attacks without even a statement of support from the US taught them otherwise. Then there were those who argued (and rightly so) that regardless of what kinds of treaties are in place, the United States would not risk helping, if it is not in its interest to do so. And if in fact it is in the interest of US to help, it will do so with or without a treaty. Therefore, they argued the treaty is useless and should be abolished. However, the treaty had items in it that were in the interest of United States and the reaction to such suggestions was even stronger than the reactions to those who called NATO irrelevant anymore. So those voices were also made silent. In other words, we got rid of the guys who wanted to decrease their defense budget and use it for health and education. And we got rid of the guys who wanted to buy the armaments but get rid of the treaty. And we were left with the ones who'd buy so much arms that later became dangerous. And we paid them off under the pretext of "relief" and "aid". And yes indeed, the people's education and view of the world remained in the middle ages, but we did not care. We were busy selling arms and "eradicating communism". BTW, does it not strike you as strange that Saudi Arabia, which is the most US friendly government in the Middle East is on that list? Could it be that the zeal with which their government has backed US has alienated its people? Should it not be that the governments ought to be considerate of their people's wants? I could go on, but this post is already too long. All the best, Sun Tzu