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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (1691)	9/28/2001 3:55:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Or is the US govt. supporting anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, who will act to benefit US and US interests AT THAT MOMENT in time? Yep... sometimes we do... Depending on the balance of power (fear) in a particular region. Or depending on where these nation fit in the international bi-polar, or multi-polar regional power structures. The US spent DECADES categorizing the undeveloped world along the lines of the cold war framework of power. If they weren't "with us" they were "with" the communists, or potentially susceptible to their subversion. But the primary focus of the US was still on averting an all-out war in Europe between the USSR and NATO. This is why such incidents as the coup against Allende in Chile, or other military coups were ignored, if not tolerated. All the US wanted was stability in these peripheral regions so that we wouldn't be required to dilute our focus from the Soviets. At the same time, we were hoping to undermine Soviet influence in the Warsaw Pact and elsewhere, such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. Is that so bad? Well, it depends upon whether you believe the US possessed the obligation to create democracies in these nations. And it depends upon if you are able to accept that you only have so much influence in these countries anyway, and it's better that you have a authoritarian government (which are generally temporary), or a totalitarian government where oppression is institutionalized throughout the society and economic resources centralized under state control. In an authoritarian state, you'll have a strong man who may rule the country, but still must enlist the support of the military, business and financial sector in order to rule. He'll eventually die, and someone else will come to power, or a set of laws will be enforced that hold all individuals accountable. But in a totalitarian state, once you've gone down that road, it's desperately difficult to reform and change economic and political courses. Should the US have a long-range foreign policy? Sure... That would be nice... But then it would likely also be considered "meddling" by those we seek to influence with that policy, would it not? And the US is "loved", by those who come here to live. The millions of people who risk their lives to become US citizens. I can't help it if the rest of the world is so jealous that they don't find themselves on the list of US charitable handouts... But I've personally seen desperate people praising US military forces who build the schools and roads they need, but can seem to convince their own governments to build. And if I have my choice, those are the people I'm going to give money and assistance to, not the ones who think that we "owe them" something, or have one hand out and the other one flipping us the bird. Hawkmoon