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: SirRealist who wrote (11341)	11/24/2001 1:57:11 PM
From: Lee Lichterman III	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are correct in that my choice of using the word "convenient" without elaborating was a poor decision. I in no way meant that it was contrived or planned by our side. What I meant by convenient was that as we were sliding into recession, the US population was still divided about the election results and controversy about "do we need defense spending with no enemy" were in the news. We had an attack on our shores which allowed us a rally cry to get everyone behind GWB, justify more defense spending, allow deficit spending in the name of national defense and get the war machine rolling should this recession go too much deeper in the years ahead. It was convenient that terrorism gave us an out to refocus the news and public from the other problems at hand and gave us a way to spend a "surplus" that wasn't without political repercussions. Good Luck, Lee

To: SirRealist who wrote (11341)	11/24/2001 2:58:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

But, as Kruschev said: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge where there is no river." I certainly don't disagree with this. But to claim that US foreign policy has been some kind of facade for US "meddling", or expansionism, in the world, as implied by Lee, doesn't bear closer scrutiny. The US economy amounted to 50% of the global GDP in 1945. That percentage declined to 20% by 1997, just prior to the collapse of the Asian economies, and now stands somewhere approximately at 30-33% of total world GDP (depending on how recent your figures are) which amounted to some 33.7 Trillion in 1998. The US GDP is now currently around $10 Trillion, as compared to the $7.3 Trillion in 1998, and has grown in size while other nations have grown much slower, stagnated, or even declined in GDP growth: theworldeconomy.org theworldeconomy.org So my point is that we've seen US GDP decline in percentage to the rest of the world, hardly something that is indicative of economic imperialism, or a desire to dominate the global economy. Because had we the will, or the desire, to do so, it would have be fairly simple to coerce the rest of the world to fall in line behind the US in 1945, or face the threat of nuclear annihilation. And the US was the primary force behind the decolonization of the world after WWII, oftentimes directly confronting our allies (if the French have ever qualified as such) such as in 1956 when both the British and French invaded the Sinai and Egypt, upon Nasser's nationalization of the Suez canal. Had it not been for the US, Nasser would have been overthrown and even greater Arab resentment might have ensued against the west. Of course, that's not to say that Nasser didn't have it coming, given his aggressiveness towards other nations in the region and his attempts to dominate other Arab states with intent of forming a regional Arab republic (with him at its head). No.. US foreign policy does not occur in a vacuum. And I still submit that we're primarily reactive, rather than proactive, in formulating our policies throughout the world. We're great at reacting to a crisis, but not so good at preventing such crises from occurring in the first place. And our failure to possess a prophylactic foreign policy is likely due to our natural hesitation to be seen as the global policeman and hesitation to be the ones who have to force developing nations to stop quarreling with one another over petty rivalries, and to spend more time improving their legal and economic systems so capital investment will migrate to their nations. There's a damn good reason that emerging growth investment funds have been crushed over the past 5 years, and it has very little to do with any overt US actions. If anything, it is due to US lethargy in dealing with the forces of political and economic chaos that have arrived with the collapse of the bi-polar geo-political power structure that existed during the cold war (US vs USSR), where most major global events were analyzed in that context, justifiably or not. Hawk