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 (13286)	12/8/2001 10:58:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thank you SirRealist. That's great! One little thing, [it's hard for me to find much or anything to disagree with in that], which is irrelevant to the situation, but I believe important historically and perhaps in future. The USA seemed totally stupid when Gorby took over. It took them years to realize he wasn't trying to trick them. I was amazed at how slow-witted the USA was. Huge opportunities were lost due to the dopey USA government treating Gorby like one of the old-style USSR rulers. The USA continues to beat it's chest that they won the cold war. That's not true. What happened was that the USSR became recognized by those inside it as untenable and unacceptable. That change of mind caused implosion as those repressed on the periphery saw the loss of will to murder local opposition and realized their freedom was at hand. Gorby was instrumental in that process. He was further removed from the early decades of murderous communism than people seem to understand. He was an enlightened believer in civilisation and took steps to bring it about. He inherited occupation of Afghanistan from the previous totalitarians. Rather than, like Nixon in Vietnam, expanding the conflict causing horrific casualties, or seeking a Final Solution, he withdrew USSR from occupation, announcing the decision in Feb 1988. infoplease.com The Russian losses in Afghanistan were 15,000 dead, which is a lot less than the USA lost in their foreign expedition in Vietnam. The USSR was not defeated in Afghanistan. In Feb 1998, the USSR was politically robust. Gorby decided that the position was unreasonable, unwinnable [like Vietnam] and Afghanistan was better left to the locals to fight among themselves. The expansionary moves towards the southern seas were over! In the context of Russian history and USSR history, 15,000 dead was trivial. That was not the main reason for the retreat. Osama did NOT defeat the USSR. He did NOT cause the breakup of the USSR. Neither did the USA cause the breakup of the USSR. As people who post in this SI discussion know, there are always strong disputes even among people who generally agree. The Republicans are virulent in their contempt for Clinton and the Democrats and the Democrats despise the Republicans [okay, that's not a universal rule, but I've seen a lot of it]. So it should not be surprising that in a place with the history of the USSR, there were very powerful turbulent forces of devolution. It's an idle boast to claim 'we won'. It's important to understand that the minds of people can shift some more and as your post so well explains, the greater battle is still to be won and is quite winnable. The battle for civilisation which is a battle for the minds of 5 billion people. It's not as though there will be millions of Nazi soldiers to deal with. There are perhaps going to be a very manageable number of Taliban and Osama Gang people to deal with. Perhaps the Military Tribunal could sort through them in Afghanistan and any they decide are not 'regular soldiers' or administrators or the like, could be passed on to be dealt with in full ceremonial courts. A trial of Osama and Omar might be worthwhile! The media and population would like it. I'm not too worried either way. If the USA executes any Taliban and Osama Gang people, I'd be indifferent. But when China does the same to people they deem to be anti-state, it will be untenable for George Bush to wring his hands at their treatment and gripe about due process and all that stuff. Meanwhile, I wonder if many people have seen Hu Jintao coming? He's a 21st century Gorby. Don't blow it again you dopey Yanks!! "Who?" you ask. No, not Who. Hu! He's the new Chinese Top Dog going to take over in a year or so. I think he wants me to move my investments to China. Now THAT's strategic competition [but I think he's got a lot of work ahead of him]. Mqurice

To: SirRealist who wrote (13286)	12/9/2001 11:08:59 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

As with any war, such soldiers are POWs who ultimately are released & repatriated, Not necessarily. I was listening to an interesting program the other day on CSPAN, and the speaker was quite particular with regard to whether Al-Qaida members could be considered "soldiers" under international law. They are really illegal belligerents, with no identifiable uniform, and who are given to carry arms in secrets, as well as deliberately targeting civilians. Thus, there is no requirement to treat Al-Qaida members as legitimate combatants. They are "non-state actors" who can be treated as international criminals and tried by any state against whom their activities have been directed. This also applies to any "assets" Al-Qaida had in place within the US. Comparisons to Nathan Hale are not justifiable, because the US had declared their independence, and Hale had received a commission from the fledgling US government, which represented itself as a legitimate state actor. His actions as a spy, certainly warranted his being hung for his operating in civilian garb to conduct his military intelligence mission. No one could really argue the British were illegitimate in carrying out such a sentence against him. With regard to the Taliban soldiers, it CAN BE ARGUED they are legitimate combatants, being employed as the official army of the Taliban government. However, if it is discovered that they acted under the guise of Al-Qaida, they could be subjected to charges they were illegimate combatants while in that status, and who could be extradited to be tried by whatever nation against which they carried out their activities (India, Uzbekistan, ... etc) Hawk