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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (144149)	9/26/2001 9:44:10 AM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I think oppression begats more violence than violence does. Witness the improvement in Libya since the bombing there.

To: Amy J who wrote (144149)	9/26/2001 1:17:08 PM
From: Craig M. Newmark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re "violence begets more violence" I'm sorry, but history indicates that that is not always true. When was the last time you paid tax on your tea to the British? When was the last time Japanese ships attacked ours? When was the last time Ted Bundy murdered a woman? Violence, applied morally, can solve problems and can decrease future violence. Craig

To: Amy J who wrote (144149)	9/26/2001 1:55:40 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, <violence begets more violence.> You should tell that to the Taliban. I hear they are very open to Western ideals preached by women. Tenchusatsu

To: Amy J who wrote (144149)	9/26/2001 2:44:20 PM
From: Richard Habib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Amy, removing oppression and poverty is obviously the answer but the devil is in the details and unfortunately the details in the 2nd half of the 20th century often position our foreign policy and business on the side of repression. Wherever I have been, no matter how dirt poor and isolated I find people who are familiar with the ideal of America. Can you imagine how bitter they must feel when they find out our government often acts against American principles in support of American interests. They expect more from us than other nationalities and that's why the betrayal that they feel is always so much greater. As sophisticated Americans we can understand why our government has to act in a specific way but I suspect it's much more difficult for an uneducated Chechen fighter to understand why we will now support Russia's struggle against their right of self-determination; without even the muted criticism we previously directed at the Russians. Whatever we think, here, of their right to self-determination, the vague ideal that is America to the 3rd world, leads them to believe we should support them. Often I think their understanding of American principles reside simply in a faith that if an American or America is involved things will be better for them. Unfortunately in labor relations, for instance, they are often on the wrong side of the capitalist equation. Thus my job is to negotiate Bangledeshi labor down from $2/day to the going rate of $1 - just like the French foreman down the way. When your at the pointy end of capitalism is probably doesn't feel like such a great deal. It's not that we treat them worse, it's just that their expectations are so much higher when an American is involved. (Some times you are in a position to treat them better than normal.) We provide a fair amount of charitable aid but the people locals see on the ground are often Europeans not Americans. In Somalia, aid was being provided, "nation building" was taking place until our policy shifted to arresting Aidid in June after 24 Paks were ambushed. But what really caused the people of Mogadishu to turn against us was a Cobra rocket attack on a house where we thought Aidid was meeting. He wasn't there and instead we killed civilians. That was in July. The ambush of our military occurred in Oct. Whatever we think, what people like Bin Laden keep in Moslem minds is the use of military helicopters in a populated city that killed innocents. In the Gulf War we can argue that we had no choice. But we should keep in mind that while the bombing of the Al Firdos bunker made hardly a ripple in the west, pictures of charred women and children (Somewhere between 200-400) are probably regularly revived in the Moslem world. We could have supported the Iraqi resistance, people far more in tune with our principles and later conducted nation building but we chose to support Kuwait, a country with no redeeming principles at all except that they have oil. Again, maybe we had no choice but we seem to be continually boxed in, supporting the side our principles would indicate we would be against. I wouldn't want to bet that we are not about to do the same thing once again. I could go on - Turkey, Angola, the Philippines, Iran, central America and Vietnam but the overarching story is the same. We seem obliged to support repressive governments in the interests of stability. Our shining moment was WWII when we occupied Germany and Japan for years in order to rebuild their nations in line with our principles. We no longer have the will to do that, partly because we view 1 American life as worth 10 of any other nationalities, and partly because I think we have lost the strength of our principles. We lasted in Somalia for a little more than a year, a good portion of which was spent behind barricades.