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: Ilaine who wrote (53064)	10/18/2002 7:47:24 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "By the way, your argument about the South undercuts your argument about Iraq." This is very true! And a nice way of getting the thread back on topic. I am not a broken clock, so you can't expect my hands to be pointing at the same direction, LOL. Instead, each military / diplomatic / political / economic situation has to be analyzed separately. Humans are complicated. The differences between the South's defense from the North, and Iraq's defense from the US are as follows: (1) The South and North both were members of the English speaking peoples. This made the South more comfortable with rule by the North. Iraq and the US, on the other hand, do not speak the same language. The basic xenophobia of the human race therefore makes it *more* likely that Iraq will resist harder than the South did (but that is not the only factor, read on). (2) The South and the North were both basically Protestant societies, by contrast, the US is still Christian, but Iraq is Moslem. This factor makes Iraq *more* likely to resist. (3) The South and the North were both basically white societies, by contrast, Iraq is somewhat dark skinned. This difference makes Iraq *more* likely to resist. (4) The South was blockaded by water on all sides, Iraq by contrast, has difficult to seal borders. This factor makes Iraq *more* likely to resist. (5) The South had no similar nations near it to give assistance and moral support. By contrast, Iraq is mostly Arabic and has large numbers of Arabic people living in adjacent nations. It also shares a religious heritage with Iran, another neighbor. This factor makes Iraq *more* likely to resist. (6) The North was adjacent to the South. By contrast, Iraq is a long ways away from the US. Since nations take a stronger interest in what happens in their backyards, the North was naturally more likely to be willing to take casualties in a fight with the South than the US is willing to take casualties in a fight with Iraq. This factor makes it *more* likely that Iraq will fight, as they will have hope of making the US go away (like Vietnam did). (7) The South and North were comparable in size, but the US is considerably larger than Iraq. This makes it *less* likely that Iraq will resist. (8) The South and North were comparable in terms of military technology, but the US has much better military technology than Iraq. This makes it *less* likely that Iraq will resist. I'm sure that we can add to this list of differences. -- Carl