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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44609)	2/24/2002 8:49:01 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Is any attention being paid there to the US troop deployment in the Philippines? Not much. There was a flurry of early media attention over the issue of Philippine law and foreign troops. And now there's some more attention on the loss of the aircraft. Remarkably little considering the number of lives lost in that crash compared with, say, Afghanistan. The objective in the Philippines seems to be that the Philippines are a hotbed of cells in the international terrorist network. I have not heard any politician discuss the Philippines, only stories from news agencies. Perhaps the crash will provoke some discussion on today's Sunday morning shows. Mostly, it's a big snooze, best I can tell. I don't think you can expect Geraldo to show up any time soon in your part of the world. Nice to see you. Karen

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44609)	2/24/2002 9:13:28 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm also curious about how people perceive the effort to build a case against Iraq as the next target in the war against terror. Has any evidence been presented to show direct Iraqi support for or participation in terrorist activity? The Administration has stated that there's nothing to connect Iraq to 9/11. Plan B seems to be the potential of bad-guy nations selling weapons to the terrorists, hence the Axis of Evil. The Axis of Evil seems to me to have expanded the target from bad guys to anyone with the potential to help the bad guys. It is getting a lot of debate, particularly as regards Korea and it's awkwardness in light of Bush's visit there. The debate is mostly about how it is playing overseas and how it might affect the coalition. There is also some limited discussion about targeting countries because we think they might possibly do us some harm in the future. Regarding a proxy war in Iraq, I've seen little discussion about the particulars. I've heard the Kurds mentioned but not the Shiites. I've heard absolutely nothing about what kind of Iraq might show up in the aftermath. Whatever planning is going on for an attack on Iraq, it's being kept quiet and is not getting a lot of media play. Most of what I've heard has been speculation on how to kick off the war and whether there will be an intermediate step demanding return of the inspectors to Iraq and then using the refusal as a trigger for an attack. Little about how the war might be prosecuted and nothing about the end game. Karen

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44609)	2/24/2002 4:56:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

We're deeply hurt that you suggest that you don't want to continue here on a lasting basis. DEEPLY hurt. What, we ain't good enuf fer youse? As to your questions, my perceptions: 1. Little attention is being paid to the Phillipines except for the helicopter crash and the occasional abductions of Americans. That is, spotty coverage of dramatic events, but no real covereage of the underlying situation, the long-term options, the justices or injustices, etc. 2. My sense is that the Iraq stuff is trying to lay the groundwork for rebuilding the coalition that supported Desert Storm, but it won't work. I see minimal possibility that we will invade Iraq without UN or at least NATO blessing, and those aren't going to happen. So Saddam is safe from overt action from us, IMO. 3. When have you ever known US policy to be deep and sustained enough to take serious concern about what form of government will take over if and when we topple a government? Doesn't happen. That's a price of every-four-year Presidential elections and a system which doesn't allow one President to serve long enough to develop a true long-term strategy plus the frequency with which the President's party doesn't have full control of Congress, plus the infighting in parties and the lack in our system of clear party leaders. There are lots of plusses to our system, but consistent long term planning is NOT one of them, the way it is with parlimentary systems where one party may be in power for many years and a Prime Minister can believe, realistically or not, that he or she could be in power for 15 or 20 years. 4. The Axis of Evil isn't. 5. We are, realistically, only concerned with terrorism which affects the US or US interests or strong US lobbying groups. For example, I've heard NO discussion anywhere of closing down the groups that funnel money to the IRA for weapons and explosives. That situation is theoretically defusing, but the money, I believe, is still pouring in to rearm the IRA if they decide to pull out of the peace process, and to keep arming the splinter groups that reject the peace process. We are paying NO attention to the Red Brigades, the Basque separationists, and many other terrorist groups around the world. And, of course, we are doing nothing to stop terrorist groups arming and training in Florida for an attempt to overthrow the government of Cuba. As pure speculation, I wager that a reasonable definition of terrorist groups would find that there are terrorist groups operating or attempting to operate in at least half the contries of the world. I only know of a few countries in which we are paying any attention to these groups. (I am aside: wonder whether the Argentinians are still trying to foment a takeover of the Faulklands, or whether they've given up that cause, or whether their economic problems are so great that they just have no time or resources for that any more? Unless maybe the government feels it needs to invade again to take take peoples' minds off their troubles, war often being the ploy of a government that wants to redirect the peoples' attentions away from its failures?)

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44609)	2/24/2002 7:39:20 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

In the NYT there's been scathing coverage of US troop deployment in the PI. Here are links to abstracts of some op ed pieces by Nicolas Kristof: query.nytimes.com query.nytimes.com query.nytimes.com There's been coverage in the Village Voice, also. In other places I'm not aware of, too, I'm sure. There's also considerable discussion in the US on the subject of which is likely in the end to be worse for us, just marginalizing Saddam while not neutralizing his nuclear and BCW facilities, or dealing with scenarios like the ones you project. One does so hope that the decision makers under Bush are very smart and very informed.... And we're doing the standard thing, fighting the terrorism that threatens us, of course. The definition of terrorism that prevails is the targeting killing of innocent civilians for purposes of intimidation. I just had a thought: Maybe the explicit acceptance by us of that definition will present a constraint on actions of ours in support of US interests such as that that took place (with our support) in the 70's and 80's in Central America (assassination of school teachers, labor leaders, radical priests, other opinion leaders.) Calling the assassins of school teachers "freedom fighters" might not pass muster under the administration policies as now articulated.