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: Spytrdr who wrote (36031)	8/5/2002 11:00:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The United States has a different attitude because it is an empire, not merely a nation. On any given day, U.S. troops are in 140 countries around the world, with permanent bases in over half of those. After two decades of structural adjustment and one of "free trade," the United States has more control over the internal policies of other countries than the elected governments of those countries. The author should have left this paragraph out of his essay. It completely destroyed any credibility that could have been assigned to his arguments. As for "regime change", yes.. there's no doubt that the US wants Saddam out, and understands that Iraq, with its diverse population may not be quite ready for "democracy". BUT IT IS READY for economic openess. And this could be achieved by creating a government that has some accountability to a business and labor class. Authoritarianism, hopefully as a temporary interim transition to a TRUE parliamentarian system would be the next step and far more attractive than what currently exists. Saddam runs the country through totalitarian terror. He provides millions of dollars to Arafat and other terrorist leaders throughout the middle east, while his own people suffer tremendous deprivations. He provides financial and moral support to terrorist networks, and there is NO DOUBT about this. While he may, or may not have had a direct operational role in 9/11, it's clear that Iraqi money has gone to such groups. Calling the US an "empire" is ludicrous. Because if we were an imperial power, we wouldn't be "pussy-footing" around about regime change in many of these nations. And we wouldn't worry about world opinion... We'd just "do it".. You, being a European (I presume) should understand this. The US was VERY reluctant to get involved in Europe's wars. But because we delayed getting involved, it required us to expend even more economic, political, and military power. And a lot of people suffered as a result of that delay. You had better think about the demographics of the middle east Spytrdr... There are some 400 million muslims currently under the age of 18. If they don't have some kind of hope for the future, and some form of political and economic opportunity, they will become the "storm-troopers" of such fanatics and despots as Saddam Hussein, as well as the extremists. But the US can't create economic opportunity (middle east marshall plan) until the despots have been removed and replaced by more moderate regimes.... Hawk