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: zonder who wrote (59065)	11/27/2002 8:15:41 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

Guess, I'll chip in my opinion. The primary reasons for enforcing regime change in Iraq is that Saddam: 1) has long been bent on developing WMD's, 2) is an aggressive would-be imperialist (based on his attempts to annex Iran's oil fields and Kuwait among other things), 3) is believed to be undeterrable (A couple reasons for thinking this: refusing to pull out of Kuwait peacefully when faced with overwhelming force, spitefully setting afire almost all of Kuwait's oil wells when his troops were finally forced out), and 4) is weak enough that he can be overthrown. When he gets nukes (and given enough time he will), it is reasonable to expect that he will soon attempt once again to continue his decades-long quest to control the entire Persian Gulf using his nukes as a threat. After all if he is willing to set Kuwait's entire oil industry on fire as an act of spite, he will just as easily be willing to obliberate whatever is denied him when he has that power. I'll assume its not necessary to list reasons why this is a bad thing. A thing to be prevented. The fact that Saddam may the worst tyrant left in the world is a secondary reason for his removal. Call it icing on the cake, a side benefit or whatever. Finally, if it is possible that democracy might be introduced post-Saddam that would be a good thing, though of course that's not a reason for war to overthrow Saddam by itself.

To: zonder who wrote (59065)	11/27/2002 8:27:06 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A note on democracy: I doubt it can be imposed by force, but the universal spread of democracy is the only hope mankind has of actually achieving world peace. yale.edu NEVER AT WAR Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another <<<<<< This lively survey of the history of conflict between democracies reveals a remarkable--and tremendously important--finding: fully democratic nations have never made war on other democracies. Furthermore, historian Spencer R. Weart concludes in this thought-provoking book, they probably never will. Building his argument on some forty case studies ranging through history from ancient Athens to Renaissance Italy to modern America, the author analyzes for the first time every instance in which democracies or regimes like democracies have confronted each other with military force. Weart establishes a consistent set of definitions of democracy and other key terms, then draws on an array of international sources to demonstrate the absence of war among states of a particular democratic type. His survey also reveals the new and unexpected finding of a still broader zone of peace among oligarchic republics, even though there are more of such minority-controlled governments than democracies in history. In addition, Weart discovers that peaceful leagues and confederations--the converse of war--endure only when member states are democracies or oligarchies. With the help of related findings in political science, anthropology, and social psychology, the author explores how the political culture of democratic leaders prevents them from warring against others who are recognized as fellow democrats and how certain beliefs and behaviors lead to peace or war. Weart identifies danger points for democracies, and he offers crucial, practical information to help safeguard peace in the future. <<<< Note:I haven't read the book above but intend to. Another link on the same subject: hawaii.edu

To: zonder who wrote (59065)	11/27/2002 11:05:44 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Actually, they were not the most advanced scientifically at the time, just in rocketry. But the point is not to locate it is a particular country, but in the ideas of government and ethics that had come to prevail in the West. I am not asserting that the United States is unambiguously the best society, I am saying that the ideas common to the West were are best being followed, as regards the issue we have been discussing, by the United States, and that someplace like the Soviet Union made a mockery of them. The ordinary means of trying to help other peoples is not, in fact, military, but through cultural exchange and assistance. No, we cannot afford to intervene militarily in every instance, nor would it always accomplish its goals. Yes, the government's primary duty is to its citizens. Yes, there are often complexities that we would be ignorant of, pertinent to the evolution of a more benign government, which should make us wary of acting rashly. But it is not a nations privilege to draw its own destiny when that is merely a cover for the oppression of the many by the few. Preferably, we would help indigenous forces deemed better, if not perfect, than the regime on the ground, rather than try to engage in nation building, and our assistance would be technical rather than involve the commitment of troops. But we cannot exclude policy options, for example, if we are in a position to stop or prevent a genocide, then stronger forms of intervention are warranted. Do we have the right to impose our governmental system on the rest of the world? As a theoretical matter, yes. Establishing elections as a way of testing the consent of the governed, and establishing civil liberties that protect minorities and allow open debate, are essential to a nation being able to take charge of its own destiny. Therefore, we are empowering them by promoting civilized norms of government. As a practical matter, we cannot afford to do it, will encounter terrible resistance, will wonder if the bloodshed is worth it considering that the society may not be ready for a full- blown democracy, and cannot occupy the most recalcitrant nations indefinitely. Therefore, our policy must be more modest and discriminating. As for Iraq, there are two answers: we are not poised to invade for humanitarian reasons, that is just a bonus. We are poised to invade to prevent a rogue regime from developing a full program of WMDs. Second, the time is ripe. Bush is not Clinton, and, in any case, sanctions have not been very effective. Public support can be mobilized in the aftermath of 9/11, as it might have been earlier. And Iraq is a key factor in a troubled region, and regime change their might change the calculus of other actors, and make them more accommodating. In any event, we cannot do everything, we have to be selective, and Iraq's turn has come up........