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: Elsewhere who wrote (22654)	3/30/2002 5:23:08 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

Let's say, military budgets will be increased by $100 billion annually as a result of 9-11. If the budgets weren't used for the latest weapon technology but for the relocation... good point...worth thinking about. and it is actually $150 billion just in the American military budget...not including increases for the CIA,FBI and $38 billion for Tom Ridge and his 5 colors...worldwide it may be several times that amount.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (22654)	3/31/2002 10:48:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If the budgets weren't used for the latest weapon technology but for the relocation Unfornately, just giving money is not the answer. It would only result in another Argentina, where the corrupt leadership would wind up fantastically wealthy (more on the Palestinian side than the Jewish, thanks to the power of the Israeli investigative press). It would require significant physical development and participation by NGO and international agencies to build this infrastructure. And that means a significant precence and interference in the affairs of both states. But I certainly concur with you in principle. The problem we face in the Mid-East is whether we, as the West, wish to invest sufficient money to develop the region to the extent that they can provide jobs to those 400-500 million.. In the Machiavellian sense, the one advantage the West has against this demographic trend is that they can't quite match us in weaponry, or the ability to transport large troop formations. So why should we spend billions(trillions?) economically developing them to the point where they may be able to actually possess the industry and economic means to wage modern war?? But on the other hand, they have the tactics of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction potentially at their disposal, which provide excellent "equalizers". And in their perceived "weakness", they will have far less hesitation to use these tactics and WMDs, targeting civilians at their every opportunity, hoping the tear the very fabris of western society, undermining our democracies and turning us into police states. So that's the real "con" to spending that money on developing the region. But it could be a "pro" if, by some means, we are able to do it in such a manner where this economic development permanently ties them to the West economically. Thus, their jobs and economies would depend upon having proper relations with the West. Either way, I would prefer spending $$$ on butter than guns any day of the week... But sometimes your enemies don't give you that choice. Hawk