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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (671)	7/21/2002 3:20:06 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 3959

Why doesn't America listen anymore? Look, if you take 10% of the world's military budgets and 10% of European and American agricultural supports and put these funds into projects designed to improve health, education, and infra-structure in the 50 worst off countries of the world you would eliminate poverty in these countries within 10-20 years. A 10 % reduction would increase foreign aid by enormous amounts. The USA and Europe are not addressing these problems and as such are or will be equally chastised for their greed. The article is indicative of the deep resentment that third world countries have towards the west. That many countries outside of the west do not support the same idea(10% reduction) is equally tragic. But leadership should come from the USA, that's where the ideals exist or should. The South Korean take is interesting in light of what happened to West Germany when East Germany got "integrated". It took much more time and money than Kohl thought at the start with severe dislocations which still are being resolved. The South Korean comment sounds realistic. "The United States often treats the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as a local conflict that can be contained, but it is spilling over. It is radicalizing attitudes in countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Strategically important and traditionally practitioners of a liberal Islam, neither nation has significant economic or political ties to the Middle East. Yet no conversation there can get past the Israeli-Palestinian situation that has caused many, including longtime friends of America, to conclude that the United States is attacking Islam itself. My objections -- that the Israeli-Palestinian fight is about territory, not religion, and that it was the Palestinians who rejected what appeared to be a good peace offer from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak two years ago - were discounted. People said the offer was not acceptable and was only seen as such by Americans because of a religious bias generated by the pro-Israel and Christian right lobbies in Washington. In Europe, the situation is not so emotional, but an official in Paris remarked that in view of France's large Muslim minority, "U.S. policy in the Middle East could be seen as a security risk by my government." " Essentially my thoughts on the problem. The Barak proposal, never printed, included a cantonization of a Palestinian state that is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Interesting article.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (671)	7/22/2002 4:41:27 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 3959

Re: A top European business leader and former EU commissioner who has long been counted among America's best friends said, "After World War II, America was all-powerful and created a new world by defining its national interest broadly in a way that made it attractive for other countries to define their interests in terms of embracing America's." In particular, the United States backed the creation of global institutions, due process and the rule of law. "Now," he said, "you are again all-powerful and the world is again in a period of restructuring but, without talking to anyone, you appear to be turning your back on things you have championed for half a century and defining your interest narrowly in terms of your own immediate military security." Another former EU commissioner and current corporate chairman in London said, "You no longer want allies or institutions, but only volunteers for posses to chase various gangs of bandits." Citing the world order the United States helped create, he added, "If you now turn your back on it all, we can only feel a sense of disappointment and betrayal, and of deep foreboding." The above snippet alone clearly shows that the US's biggest challenge in the decade to come will be dealing with Judeofascist Eurasia --which emcompasses the EU. As the former EU commissioner puts it, the post-WWII world shaped under the US leadership amounted to a superb bargain for bankrupted European powers: they just engaged in a barbarous, suicidal conflict, destroyed most of their productive capacities, ended up with billions of dollars of debts owed to the US.... and yet, they all got a seat at the UN, while the colonial victors (France, the UK, Belgium) kept their colonies up until the 1960s... All in all, America was #1, and Western Europe was #2 --not a bad deal considering the worldwide bloodshed inflicted by the latter. Well, those were the good ol' days... The geopolitical carve-up of the world between Europe and America is coming to an end --AND THAT'S THE CHIEF CAUSE OF TODAY'S INSTABILITY. The Euros just DON'T WANT to be left behind! They scramble to force Uncle Sam to keep them as the world's deputy sheriff.... I'm afraid it's gonna be a long shot. Germany, for instance, has publicly claimed that she wants a UN Security Council seat. So, Germany did make an interesting offer: how about a SINGLE UN seat for the EU as a whole (held by EU members on a rotating basis)? After all, if tiny countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, etc. have all a UN seat then the city of Shanghai alone could claim one as well --for its 13 million inhabitants. So far, the UN is not a "one-man-one-voice" democracy: France, 55 mil souls = 1 seat/vote; China, 1.2 billion souls = 1 seat/vote... Kinda lopsided arrangement, isn't it? Of course, as regards Germany's offer, needless to say that France and the UK dismissed it as anathema. The strains between Europe/Eurasia and the US will likely amplify in the coming years as the US will increasingly rely on the Transpacific trade to get its economy back on track. Gus

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (671)	7/22/2002 5:42:38 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Footnote to my previous post: NEWS ANALYSIS U.S. disdain provokes new unity in Europe Steven Erlanger The New York Times Monday, July 22, 2002 Leaders say relationship has changed BERLIN European leaders, increasingly irritated by the Bush administration, feel they are coming to a moment of truth about themselves and their relationship with Washington. American contempt for a weak Europe is producing pressure for more unity, more outspoken independence and a clearer understanding that Europe must spend more money on its military forces if Washington is going to take it seriously. Real interests are diverging, and years of talk about tensions and resentments have crystallized into a sudden perception that the relationship itself has changed. [...] iht.com The real, fiercest EU/US clash has yet to come --in Africa.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (671)	7/22/2002 8:56:14 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

Re: My objections -- that the Israeli-Palestinian fight is about territory, not religion, and that it was the Palestinians who rejected what appeared to be a good peace offer from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak two years ago - were discounted. That's quite a captious statement.... The Mideast conflict is indeed about "territory" as far as the Palestinians are concerned --after all, they've been dwelling the whole area, including Israel, for generations and, suddenly, got pushed around by Europeans of Jewish persuasion. They just want their homeland back. Now, from the European settlers' viewpoint, it's a different ballgame: remember that, originally, the Zionists set a shortlist of half a dozen countries that might be suitable for a "Jewish homeland"... Patagonia (Argentina) and Uganda were among them. Why did they finally pick Palestine, were it not for "religion"?