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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (49483)	10/4/2002 11:41:46 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "By this law, the Ukranians should have rallied round Stalin when Hitler attacked. Didn't happen." The USSR was run by an administration that was fundamentally foreign to the Ukraine. Here's what the CIA says about the Ukraine (which, for God's sake, is now not even in the same country as Moscow, LOL): Ethnic groups: Ukrainian 73%, Russian 22%, Jewish 1%, other 4% ... Languages: Ukrainian, Russian, Romanian, Polish, Hungarian cia.gov The above is after the Russians colonized the place for another 50 years, the numbers of Ukrainians were undoubtedly higher back in the early 1940s. So when the Germans came, the locals saw a chance to gain independence as a neutral nation. This did not apply to the Russians, and they fought back against Hitler, and, importantly for my case, *they lionized Stalin as a f'ing hero.* Note that I explicitly called out an exception for "foreign installed" authoritarian regimes. Now you know why. The Ukraine was a colony of the Russians, it's "liberation" by the Germans doesn't count. The fact that the locals were wrong in their belief that the Germans would be better than the Russians has nothing to do with it. *If the Ukraine had been a part of a Ukrainian authoritarian regime, they would have fought back harder.* Afghanistan under the mostly Arab Taliban is another example of a "foreign" regime, which is why I made an exception to this rule for that case. (See #reply-16509264 ) So go find another example. With your extensive knowledge of history you are surely aware of many other cases. And I don't doubt that those cases exist. Maybe Cambodia under Pol Pot would be a counter example. But rules for human behavior are never 100%, and the Pol Pot regime was infamous for a level of cruelty that set records. So here's a question for you: When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in order to oust Pol Pot, did the Cambodians rally around Pol Pot, or did they shoot back at the Vietnamese soldiers? -- Carl

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (49483)	10/4/2002 11:49:07 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Hey, Carl, haven't you spent half your time arguing that there is no connection between secular Iraq and Al Qaeda or the other Islamists?" You're twisting my description of a complicated situation just enough to make it wrong. Let me repeat myself, with the bolds indicating the differences between what I've been saying and the words you are putting in my mouth: There is little or no connection between the secular *Baathist party of Saddam Hussein* [which is not at all the same thing as "Iraq"] and the Islamic Fundamentalists, including Al Qaeda. Re: " Where did all these fundamentalists come from?" The area is populated by Arabs that believe in the Koran. Of course they have Islamic Fundamentalists. I suppose the next thing you're going to argue is that Israel supports the Islamic Fundamentalists in the Occupied Territories, LOL. No, the truth is that the Baathis regime in Iraq has been fighting their Islamic Fundamentalists (who are largely supported by Iran) for a very long time. Re: "Do you now agree that Saddam has been inviting them in and training them?" No. -- Carl