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: AlienTech who wrote (17454)	1/28/2002 5:50:15 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The US is just 200 years old and went through slavery which was banned in most parts of the world thousands of years ago." Here is an organization that seems to think that slavery is very much still with us: iabolish.org

To: AlienTech who wrote (17454)	1/28/2002 6:57:32 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>The US is just 200 years old and went through slavery which was banned in most parts of the world thousands of years ago.<< Er, no. Slavery is still legal in parts of Africa. Europeans enslaved Africans even into the 20th century, see, e.g., King Leopold in the Belgian Congo (read Heart of Darkness). These days the main culprits are Muslims. England started emancipation in 1838, and was done in 1848. Slavery was legal in Brazil until 1888. I think that's the latest in the Americas.

To: AlienTech who wrote (17454)	1/28/2002 11:13:24 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

In the grand schemen of things, US and western civilization is very young. And they should not be judging others on how they currently are. But lets stop here for a second.. Actually, you might want to review that grand scheme there AlienTech (as well as the global experience with Slavery, both past and current). The US, as a sovereign state, may be "young", but the ideas that embody our political and cultural system harken back thousands of years, just as does much of western society. In fact, some might opine (as I do) that the US is the ultimate manifestation of classical Roman and Greek political thinking, combined with the best of mecantilistic capitalism which is of more recent development. And you might also be reminded that it was the US, not Europe or Asia, that literally led to the dismantling of colonial empires which had existed for hundreds of years. And it was the relatively "young" US who has been twice forced to force their elders from literally tearing one another apart from their acts of aggression between themselves. There's a DAMN GOOD reason that the US has traditionally been isolationist with regard to international affairs. We know that, for all of their "glorious" history, their kings, their nobility, and their intellectual snobbery, the Europeans still have little worth emulating. And possessing such a history (legacy?) also makes adaptation to economic and political change very difficult, and often calamitous. And you might also realize that with regard to democratic government, suffrage (voting rights), and constitutional rights for every individual (not just the nobility as per the Magna Carta), the US IS OLD in comparison to every other major nation on this planet. Again.. it's all in the perception. Hawk

To: AlienTech who wrote (17454)	1/29/2002 6:30:31 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

>>The US is just 200 years old and went through slavery which was banned in most parts of the world thousands of years ago.<< Slaves from Africa, kidnapped by Africans and largely transported by the Spanish. Slavery exists in pockets still. as to its being banned thousands of years ago, I'm only aware of a few places, not the majority. >>Other parts of the world Had women who were treated equal to men in rights which the US did not have until the 60's.<< Again, very isolated cases. The US has been instrumental in bringing women's equality to areas of the world, like China and the Middle East, where women are heavily subjugated. Ever hear of Chinese infanticide towards female babies? In the world's largest population, that was common well after NOW was formed. >>In fact most asian countries have WOMEN prime ministers and presidents while the US is anal retentive about a NON-WHITE in the white house let alone a woman.<< As I recall, Shirley Chisholm, Victoria Woodhull, and the guy who never held an elective office, Jesse Jackson are the best-known to have made the effort; only Chisholm had federal or gubernatorial elective experience. Were Colin Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor prone to do so, I think either could win. How many countries can you pinpoint where a democratically elected ethnic minority-in-that-country has won such high office? >>In which other country would a company like Enron, Exodus, Global crozzing , mcleoid, xoxo etc be able to totally unscrupliously rape their investors with impunity!!!! Only in the US would this be considered civilized behaviour!! << Prudent longterm investors, such as adherents to 'Buffetology' would not have made those investments. Nor put too many eggs in one basket as many Enron folks did. Rape is a rather extreme and erroneus description of a market that is largely voluntary (the exception in what you cited is ENRNQ which did freeze retirement accts of employees, possibly violating some law). Markets can be wild; those examples generally only impact those with excess money to invest; few are on the breadlines for making the wrong gambles. And it's considered civilized enough that foreign dollars prefer it over many others.... in part because it permits freedom and just enough regulation to keep the corruption from getting out of control. The bigger danger is the human compulsion to be greedy and not know when to quit. >>The US has always taken what it wanted. It takes time because they have to appear like they are not.<< The concern for appearances is relatively recent. The US has mostly negotiated and bought what it's wanted, if you speak of what occurs outside of our borders. It has been an aggressor mostly in this hemisphere. Elsewhere, it's mostly been a matter of negotiating. >>In fact in the WSJ there was an article about how the US should annex Saudi Arabia and administer it for the benefit of of man IE benefit of the US since others are not really part of mankind.<< I do not consider WSJ to speak in behalf of the majority. It's a pro-business extremist publication. >>In fact the US itself is a contradition on that statement since I am sure native indians would be just so glad to live in reservations in conditions like afganistan because they are so hmmm generous!<< The treatment of American Indians was deplorable. It is making great strides to improve that. >>The palestinians might not be right just like the other terrorists, but until very recently the US was the biggest backer or terrorism in the world. With Saudi arabia being a close second. Funding 2.5 billion dollars (matched by another 2.5 bil by saudi arabia) into afganistan each year to fund militia groups in their fight against communism would be considered a terrorist activity by the USSR especially considering the US supplied what FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND stinger missiles? Too bad the russians did not find out that they were really fighting the US until after they left. << Our involvement in Afghanistan was not offensive. It began as a counter to Russian invasion and expansionism. I seriously doubt that there were many surprises to the Russians, as they had intelligence forces of roughly the same caliber as we did. >>In the UN world court nicaguaria actually got an injunction against the US to stop and desist terrorist activities against their country!!!<< And I used to march against our involvement there because some of our actions seemed clearly illegal per US law. >>I dont have too much time to post or correct things, But the height of things was some former advisor to clinton who proudly broadcasted to the world how the 4.5 bil in aid the US was giving afganistan would be better served by giving it to new york. The US is giving 280 million. Japan and Iran is giving 500 million each.<< Go reread the figures on a per-year basis. Ours is the largest commitment of aid. >>And how america lost soldiers for UN peace keeping duties and other countries should take up those burdens etc etc etc. But Other countries do loose a lot of soldiers in UN peace keeping duties! One of the largest was the indian contingent that went to ceylon/sri lanka where over a 1000 soldiers died.<< I'm uncertain of your point here. Since those movements were independence movements FROM India, they viewed Indian troops as the enemy, not as peacekeepers. >>The US has a lot to be proud off! But taking credit for everything good and blaming others for all the bad is also one of it. << If I conveyed that, it was not my intent. I meant to convey that weighing the good against bad, country by country, there are few who come close to matching the positive balance of the US. In my opinion, specifically, there are none who have exceeded it.