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: JohnM who wrote (39978)	8/26/2002 1:21:24 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, I have no problem calling terrorism what you call terrorism in that post. I think the difference between us is whether the US has some ight/obligation/responsibility/wisdom to end all that terrorism. I think that begins and ends with the global terrorism linked to 9-11. For the moment, in my mind at least, that's limited to Al Q. The breadth of the definition of Al Q might be debated but I won't go there. I actually think a lot of us on the thread agree with this reasoning. I don't see the US as having any legitimate role in regional conflicts, in civil wars, etc. unless other dimensions come into play such as ethnic cleansing or flagrant human rights abuses. Perhaps national interest such as a regional ME conflict which threatens all the oil supply from there with no other major sources available. Again - few would disagree. Hmm, so I see four grounds for US involvement--self defense (Al Q), a narrowly circumscribed national interest argument, ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse (not all cases of the above but the presence of the case gives the US reason to consider taking some sort of action). Now YOU sound like Bush. You agree with him in principle, but simply disagree over his choice of Iraq. We have not heard any argument from you that Saddam is not involved with ethnically cleasing his Shia or Kurdish populations or with extreme abuses on Human Rights. And while the Administration has not offered proof that you find acceptable for a direct self-defense reason - Iraq hits hard on 3 of 4 reasons you claim are accpetable. But I don't see the presence of something called terrorism as a reason. Wouldn't it by definition be an affront to Human Rights? Oh, and one more disclaimer, I also feel that the US, as we've discussed on this thread, has itself been guilty of attacks on innocent civilians (terrorism) in the bombing of German and Japanese cities in WWII. Now you sound like my 16 year old, wondering (after watching Saving Private Ryan) why we fought the way we did. Why didn't we do this, or that or the other... I have heard from others who view our waiting to enter the war, stalling on opening a second front, etc as a war crime - because we knew what Hitler was doing in the Camps. We sat idle until we could minimize our causulties and we 'let' the Holocaust happen. Maybe we should have 'Constructively Engaged' the Germans. John

To: JohnM who wrote (39978)	8/26/2002 2:23:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

though it may well mean that you intended to disagree with me. Not particularly trying to disagree, or agree... I was just reiterating my position about what constitutes a terrorist versus a guerilla movement, admitting that there are always various shades of gray that are mixed into any such situation. As for whether the US should support or not support various movements around the world, it all depends on whether their interests dovetail with ours. I'm not particularly crazy about seeing US forces becoming involved in Georgia. But if the end goal is to create a successful transition to independence and democracy, or merely creating a "spoiler" scenario that forces the Russians to walk more gently down there, then it may have some value. There are many regimes throughout the world that I don't believe are fit to be called "soveriegn". My definition of sovereignty derives from the belief that every sovereign government must be accountable to its citizenry through some form of electoral process, as well as legal statutes created through an accountable political process. Anything else is merely sovereignty through subjugation. Despots claiming sovereignty over a country is nothing more than implementation of "jungle law", where the biggest and baddest rule over the weak.. It is certainly nothing that we need feel compelled to respect if such a government threatens our own interests (verbally or physically). And many of these insurgency movements are self-initiated through internal unrest. All they require is sufficient "fuel" to turn a spark into a flame. Thus, I would rather be "controlling the fire" myself and trying to channel it into something constructive, rather than something more brutal and destructive. So if they're going to be fighting anyway, it's better to try and shape the events as best you can to decide a stable and democratic outcome that is mutually beneficial. Democracies are certainly the preferable outcome, but economic plurality and opportunity can suffice as a short-term goal. The bottom line is that there will always be wars of independence and nationalism when aggrieved parties believe they are being oppressed in a society and they lack political means of expressing their grievance. And lacking support for democratic and economic reforms, non-democratic power brokers, domestic and foreign, will gain the upper hand and hijack such movements for their own purposes and not the people of that region or country. I also don't believe that human rights is a predicate for direct US involvement. However, I do believe that the US should indirectly support the promotion of human rights everywhere, since it is the foundation of democracy and tolerance, and directly support such movements where we can have a major impact (eg: Iran, Iraq, Bosnia,.. etc). I believe that where voids of power exist and various entities are vying to fill that void, the US has an interest in influencing and creating a democratic outcome. But that doesn't mean we'll always be successful. But at least we're trying. And finally, I don't perceive US or British bombing attacks against German and Japanese cities as "terrorism". Those nations, as a whole, engaged in warfare or worked for the purpose of creating the means of perpetuating that war. Thus, they became legitimate targets, especially when their nations displayed similar disregard for civilian lives in carrying out their attacks. That's called "total war"... ugly, brutal, and no holds barred.. But with the direct exception of the firebombing and nuclear attacks upon Japan, the US engaged in very few such attacks against Germany. The British were the primary power that carried out fire-bombing of German cities. But in the case of Japan, given that their means of production were heavily decentralized into "cottage factories", hitting the average Japanese citizen was the only means of directly attacking their ability to wage war. Hawk@haveanequallygoodday.com