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: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 6:20:19 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nobody is claiming it will be quick and easy, Steven. Certainly not me. We'll just have to wait and see, as you say. But it's clear to me, and obviously to others as well, that Arab backwardness bit us squarely in the ass September 11th, and it is now a vital national security interest to alleviate that condition. That road passes through Baghdad. I'll leave that as my closing remark. None of us are in a position to make the decisions, so we're all along for the ride. :) Derek

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 6:48:25 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

After examining your arguments, Steve, I have decided you have a point. Maybe we should start our "Preemptive Invasions" with an easier target. So here is my recommendation. TEN REASONS WHY WE SHOULD INVADE FRANCE INSTEAD OF IRAQ. 10) It's a nicer climate, the troops won't get all hot and sweaty. 9) We already have an Army in Germany. We just turn the Tanks south. 8) The French Army is experienced at surrendering. 7) The Germans will loan us their old invasion plans. 6) Easier occupation. More of them speak English. 5) Much better food in Paris than Baghdad. 4) When the troops stop to eat, they won't get sand in their food. 3) The troops will find the women to be much more fun. 2) We have already beaten Iraq, we have never beaten the French. AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY WE SHOULD INVADE FRANCE INSTEAD OF IRAQ? 1) No need to install a new Government!

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 8:43:17 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 281500

interview yesterday on Fox with a major general contributor... War plans... he talked with exiled Iraqi's in London. He was told that in the next week or two they begin military training for those who left Iraq and will invade it. (I think it was something like 20/30,000 in Iran). These troops are being trained to fight city warfare. U.S. troops will not go into Baghdad only surround it... Special Forces will be set up to take out the rockets should they come out of the caves etc. I understand it takes several minutes to set up these things. Satellite has the positions under review and for Iraq to hit any of the oil fields of its neighbors or their country they need to bring these rockets into a field already identified.. Special forces may already be in the area to light up each of the mobile units before they can fire. Major General also estimated total troops for the invasion will be around 50/70,000. Of course this is one person who is retired stating what he has heard thus far. Nothing mentioned about after the war. However, WashingtonPost did mention some team in State Department working on the issue... It is in an article on OIL. in todays paper. Most of article is on oil , making sure Russion gets a guarentee of its rights and outstanding monies invested in Iraq. France is another country mentioned to be make sure their investments in oil or not taken away... Article ended saying US oil companies cannot wait until they can get in there.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 12:30:42 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>When the US has had to rebuild a nation - it has built democratic institutions there. > Anybody knows what happened in South Korea. The end result after about 50 years seems pretty good. When did they go from dictatorship to democracy? >Let’s get something straight. The US did not rebuild Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves, with American assistance. That assistance was critical, but no amount of assistance will rebuild a nation if that nation lacks the social, cultural and political infrastructure necessary to support development>

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 12:48:18 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

It might be wise to recall at this point that the US has never hesitated to install or prop up dictators in 3rd world countries, any time it suited our immediate interest to do so. Yes, this is exactly the criticism I referred to in my immediately prior post. I've read that thought expressed thousands of times, and you've made it so many times yourself that it simply flows out fully formed in one sentence. Well said. Now, here is the question. Did we do it out of sheer fuggheaded meanness, did we pick the biggest bastard we could find in order to grind the populace down? Or did we pick the best of a bad bunch? Regardless of whether you pick (a) or (b), can we do it better in the future? And if so, how? Most of us have a hard time comprehending the perspective of people of people and cultures that have never known good or even functional government, a situation that prevails over much of the world. You almost sound like a libertarian, but you don't mean it. You believe that good government is possible, as well as desirable. How do we achieve it?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 1:19:52 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Excellent post Steven, although we cannot impose a democracy or working government in Iraq, we can help create the environment around which it's far more likely to take place. We also shouldn't assume the road will be an easy one after Saddam falls. On the other side of the coin, to do nothing poses a huge risk to world peace and American safety. To do nothing is not a benign act. Many have already suffered under Saddam's tyranny, and no doubt many more will continue to suffer if we were to disengage militarily. Tony Blair said it well in this speech. number-10.gov.uk The key characteristic of today's world is interdependence. Your problem becomes my problem. They have to be tackled collectively. All these problems threaten the ability of the world to make progress in an orderly and stable way. Climate change threatens our environment. Africa, if left to decline, will become a breeding ground for extremism. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction combine modern technology with political or religious fanaticism. If unchecked they will, as September 11 showed, explode into disorder and chaos.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 3:17:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Very provocative post Steven... Let me add my .02 worth here.. They were dangerous in war – and quick to rebuild - because they were at an advanced stage of political, social, and economic evolution The MAJOR reason that Japan and Germany were rebuilt is because the US PERMITTED them to regain their former industrial strength AND BY ACCEPTING MANY OF THEIR GOODS in US markets (despite our own post-war recession). Sure they were disciplined and organized societies. But without markets to sell their products to, and the financing that re-capitalized their financial and industrial sectors, their economies would have languished. All of Europe was devastated by WWII. It was financially impoverished, and it's transportation and industrial infrastructure devastated by years of total war. This required financing that only the US was in a position to provide. Furthermore, every nation on the continent was fighting desperately to capture market share at the expense of their equally devastated neighbors. And we must ALSO recall that there were certain segments of the US political system (such as Morgenthau) who advocated leaving Germany as an agriculturally based nation, forbidding them from ever again rebuilding their industrial might. So I would say that the US more than just "assisted" the rebuilding of post-war Europe, it was the primary driver of it. And it certainly was with regard to Germany, where it's former opponents had little desire to see the country rebuild and compete against their own industries. But it was the cold war that necessitated that a strong Germany was imperative for the defense of the rest of Europe (being the primary buffer state). And correct me if I've misinterpreted you with regard to the following: It might be wise to recall at this point that the US has never hesitated to install or prop up dictators in 3rd world countries, any time it suited our immediate interest to do so. The consequences, both for us and for the countries involved, have often been less than delightful. It seems to me that you, on one hand, seem to "indict" the US for supporting dictators in these less developed countries, while at the same time seeming to indicate that democracy may not be the ideal form of government to replace Saddam, and would only work long term. Democracy will have to grow and evolve in Iraq, as it has grown and evolved elsewhere. That process will take time, as it has elsewhere. It will be chaotic and at times violent, as it has been elsewhere. My belief is that unless democratic systemic structures are put into place which enable people to express their choices, and which make government answerable to its citizens, it will not ever evolve. Corruption exists in all societies, democratic and authoritarian. And it will always be thus. But I would rather that such a society as Iraq possess some basic essentials towards exposing such corruption and making it accountable to the people, and to a fair legal framework. And thus, if a dictatorship is "required", I'd rather they be dependent upon US support and influence, than some other non-democratic nation. At least we maintain some measure of ability to effect change over time. Hawk

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/15/2002 10:41:58 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

This started out as a reply to one post, and turned into a reply to several others as well. A superb post, Steven. I get to this as my eyes glaze over from trying to catch up on my thread reading. All of us need to keep your thoughts in mind as we consider our own positions.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (44105)	9/16/2002 3:48:42 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Steven Rogers; Great post. Re: "I’ve long believed that oil riches are not at all conducive to the evolution of good government in developing nations. ..." This is true of every country that gets stuck with a single industry which exports something that the rest of the world will pay very well for. Oil requires a lot of technology, but as you say, only a small percentage of the population has to understand that technology. The same could be said of (at one time or another), of the Southern US and cotton, Argentina and leather, lots of places and gold, etc. The basic problem (this is not a Bilow original, but is standard economic argument, but I don't recall exactly where I saw it) is that the exports of a country compete with each other. If there is a single dominant export, it will tend to drive the value of the country's money too high, which will suppress alternative exports, as well as fund importation of goods. The imported goods are cheap (in the country's economy), so there is no need for the process of industrialization that takes place when local industry replaces imports with home made goods. In the U.S., if the farmers have a bumper crop and the rest of the world has bad crops, the resulting rise in the value of exports of food cause an increase in the value of the dollar that cause difficulty for companies that export other things. The basic principle is that exports compete with each other, and oil is the most competitive export of all, (taking into account the total dollar value). -- Carl P.S. Your post was not too long, certainly not "way too long", but maybe my opinion is not the one you want to judge by.