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 (7417)	10/25/2001 4:49:17 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi ratan lal; Re: "having lived amongst 500 million muslims ..." Please name 0.01% of the ones you knew personally. Re: "C'mon Bilow lets call them as we see them. Its bribery at its highest best. we are buying their loyalty." It's partly bribery, it's partly fear of us using their country and military for bombing practice, and it's partly enlightened self interest. But even if it were entirely bribery and fear I would have no particular problem with that. It's not like this is an unfamiliar condition of the human race. (See #reply-16507664 for a beautiful quote on the subject from Thucydides.) If they want to escape this brutal condition that they (and others, including the U.S.) put them in, they have the ability to do it largely on their own, but it will take the emotionally difficult task of forgiveness and toleration. The phrase that has been handed down in my family explaining why we are still not carrying on feuds in the boondocks is "Vengence is Mine Sayeth the Lord", which we interpret to mean that by believing in God we give up part of our right to eternal revenge. This phrase is also a part of Islam, so they can interpret it the same way if they want to. (And it is undeniable that they have forgiven and tolerated in the past.) Re: "And btw the elites dont own the countries. its the people." This is not the case. Power is always, in every country, and at all times exercised by the ruling elites. This is a rule that never changes. All that changes is the ruling elites, and they are always a minority of the people. Maybe the lyrics to a popular song would help illustrate this: azlyrics.com Re: "And the people will rise once they get mad enuf and want government of the people (not the elites), by the people (not the foreigners) and for the people (again not for the elites)." And when the people get all that what will they do? Elect a new elite. We are lucky to have the wonderful system in the United States where two different groups of elites fight over the right to run the country, and one will be put out of power by the other for being unlucky or for pissing us off, but the fact is that the elites run the country, not the people. I'm not complaining about this. I think our government is about as good as they get. I would be very afraid to make significant changes in how they are elected, and how the many parts of it split the power that they have over us. I think other countries would do well to examine carefully how our system works. From the point of view of the United States it really doesn't matter if foreign nations that are at war with the United States are ruled by their "people" or by a foreign or domestic elite. The fact is that if the actions of the government are unsatisfactory to us we have options. Those options run the gamut everywhere from sending them a letter telling them about our concerns to applying 300psi overpressures to their cities. Every nation has some of these options, but since we are the most powerful we have somewhat more of them. Most of the time the enemies of the United States are not elected, civil rights supporting, democracies. When we do go after democracies they are usually very weak or young. Mostly, the other democracies have been on our side. But not always, for example, we forced the Philippines into the condition of a colony in 1898 despite the fact that there was a more or less democratic government there. We had promised their independence (by implication?) when we took the islands over from Spain, formally acknowledged the promise in 1916, gave them their own constitution in 1935, and broke the last tie of commonwealth in 1946. Messing around with the Philippines was probably a mistake, and it seems like it lasted a ridiculously long time, but it is important to note that the violent part of the relationship was only a couple years. Unlike the Indians in Kashmir, (or the US in Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan) we were not faced with a guerilla uprising that was supported by an enemy on an adjacent border. So the violence only lasted a few years. This is important because violence prevents economic growth, and it is economic growth that gives people something to think about other than how badly their ancestors were treated. Re: "Youa are dreaming if you think our postings here are going to solve anyones problems. All we can do here is put forth our fatcs, ideas and opinions. The rest is all bullshit." I agree. There are only two things that I feel that are important here. One is to calm the anger of the hot heads that want to use nuclear weapons on the Moslems (because they are satanic and can never be trusted, for instance). The second is to calm the fears of those who think that the US military is inadequate and is about to get into another Vietnam. I'd also be inclined to reverse the delusions of our enemies who believe that the US is soft and has no will to fight, but the people who need to figure that out don't read SI, and my guess is that they will only figure that out through hard experience. My effect on public opinion, like my effect on foreign policy (or the elections or the stock price of RMBS for that matter) is as close to zero as can be measured. But with the gravity of the situation, I think it's worthwhile to make some attempt. And besides, the world situation is fascinating beyond compare right now. -- Carl