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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (4167)	9/21/2001 7:23:46 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Hi Carolyn; If I were in the administration, I'd be talking about a UN government for Afghanistan and a Marshall plan to bring the country up to, say, Pakistan's level of economy, health, etc. We're scaring the Moslems because they only see our violent side. And that means that we have unnecessarily fewer allies than we could have. I want to see cheering crowds greet US troops in Kabul. I don't think we have much of a chance of being seen as freedom fighters in Iraq, but too bad, we need to put Saddam out. The detail on assasinations by US operatives is something that was talked about in the initial few days but isn't being talked about now. I wonder if that is because they went ahead and implemented it, and are quiet, or because we're going to pursue the quite useless (as Gingrich pointed out) tactic of killing their civilians and soldiers. And by the way, since we've regularly been bombing Iraq for 10 years I really feel that we've been at war with them for that long. I think that that policy was wrong. A major power should either crush a minor power (one not supported by another major power) or it should damn well leave them militarily alone. I guess it was the United Nations that kept us from doing it right. The other problem was the ridiculous attempt to keep a balance of power going between the various nations of the Middle East and South Asia, all of who seem to hate each other with remarkable vehemence. When England kept a balance of power in Europe it made sense. It was a costly policy that kept getting England dragged into bloody wars, but it was necessary for their safety. For us, there is no real threat from the Middle East except oil, and that is really a convenience, not a reason to risk our people. If this country had to stop all oil imports tomorrow we could do it. We would have to stop driving around. For a couple years there would probably be a lot of guys who slept at work instead of commuting to the suburbs, but we could do it. It's not like we would starve to death, and within 5 years we'd probably have a decent set of alternative energies in production. (Shale oil, nuclear, etc.) Now I'm not saying that we should stop oil importation, I'm just saying that it is not a critical component of our existence. But I'm getting off topic. (The company is having a beer fest and I'm late.) The reason we don't have to arrange a balance of power in the Middle East is because we're big enough to beat them all even if they all ganged up on us. We didn't need a balance of power to protect Kuwait, our power was enough to liberate it. And so to leave Iraq around as a counterweight to Iran was stupid. These little nations like Pakistan, Iraq, India, Iran, etc., need to be taught that they will not use force to pound each other with. For that reason, I think that the US has to guarantee national borders even for the nations we don't like. Here's an example. Greece and Turkey hate each other, but they've had their boundaries guaranteed by the US. So no war. In fact, as time goes on, they'll probably slowly begin to get along. We need to speed that process in the 3rd world because otherwise these countries are going to build nukes and stuff to defend themselves. With the US actively involved in defense, it becomes a waste of money to build military. -- Carl