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 (52233)	9/15/2001 5:07:45 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 70976

Jacob, thanks for your well thought post. I am glad to see that we have so much in common. I too am not in favor of the scenario you described. I leave out the argument on the bringing in and taking out governments. That has to be discussed on a case by case basis. But let's look at the non-interference policy. I am not suggesting a sudden change with the dire consequences that you mentioned. That would be irresponsible. However, within each country, there are varying political factions. We can actually push for a gradual establishment of democracy in those countries. And as their political system matures, we should reduce our interference and let them make their own mistakes. Eventually they will get it right. Iran is a very good example. For decades US kept a heavy presence there due to its strategic importance. Earlier I discussed how these interferences backfired. Let's see what happened since the Iran-Iraq war. Because Iran was left fairly alone (or isolated depending on your perspective), its people managed to find solutions to their problems. Once the revolutionary fever died down and the demands of the war were removed, some normalcy returned. They are now the only country in the region to have voted out the government and successfully replace it with the opposition. In other words they are closer to a true democracy than any other country in the region, and they did not need our help to do it. True, the fundamentalists are still too strong. They control the judiciary and the "Supreme Leader" is in their camp. But the president, the parliment, and most branches of government are in direct opposition to the fundamentalists. Eventually the fundamentalist will be removed and the people will gain their full freedom. One of the interesting side effects of allowing (is that the right word? We didn't really want to allow anything) Iran to develope on its own, is that two of the biggest supporters of full relations with the US are the students who occupied the US embassy in the 80s (they are high profile MPs). In other words, former enemies are turned into friends by the virtue of not feeling their independence threatend. Japan is another good example, though in a different way. After WWII, the US provided an infrastructure of change, but otherwise stayed away from colonizing Japan (direct or by proxy). I think it worked out pretty well. I don't see why it should be difficult to apply the lessons from these two cases to the rest of the world. BTW, we have a different perspective on the roots of WWII. I think had there been less isolation and a better chance for the Germans to rebuild after WWI, Hitler would have never come to power to begin with. The British "Appeasement" was done at the wrong time, with the wrong person, and for the wrong reasons. The two world wars are also lessons to keep in mind. Sun Tzu