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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (3448)	11/27/2002 3:07:01 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 6901

Excellent post, and time well spent, imo.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (3448)	11/27/2002 3:29:53 PM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 6901

Excellent all the way down.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (3448)	11/27/2002 3:52:07 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 6901

Very cogent arguments. I don't think I disagree with anything you have said, and could not have said it so well.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (3448)	11/27/2002 4:03:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 6901

Nice post, frank.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (3448)	11/27/2002 5:26:26 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6901

Hi frankw1900; Re: "1. What were the numbers of palestininans in Palestine 20 years ago and what are the numbers today? What were the numbers of Iraeleis in Palestine 20 years ago and today? Is this evidence of ethnic cleansing? 2. What were the numbers of Israelis and Palestinians in in Israel 20 years ago and today? 3. What were the numbers of Christians in Israel and Palestine 20 years ago and today? Question: Who, actually, is being ethnically cleansed from where and by whom?" "Ethnic cleansing" does not imply (necessarily) murder, though that is a common misconception. Instead, it means forcing people to move out of land. ("Genocide" is the word for killing people.) The simple fact is that the Palestinians live on less land now than they lived on 20 years ago. The land that they no longer live on, is covered by Israeli settlements. That is, the land that the settlers live on was ethnically cleansed by the Israelis. Here are some references from the Jerusalem Post: jpost.com jpost.com All I'm doing is calling a spade a spade. When you blow up a particular ethnic group's houses, force them to move elsewhere, that's ethnic cleansing. That Israel has been doing it at a slow creep doesn't make it any less meet the definition. Re: "With regard to Iraq. I hate economic sanctions because they don't work, but nonetheless, Who, actually denied the Iraqi citizens food?" Oh come on. Sanctions caused the economic destruction of Iraq. Economic destruction causes starvation. This is a simple fact. That the rich in a country fail to give away their wealth in an attempt (likely failing) to keep the poor people from starving doesn't make the connection any less direct. Re: "Deny them ownership of a country for a base is a good thing. That sometimes requires military operations. But mostly it doesn't." I agree. Re: "Assist countries that are being attacked by islamists (eg) Indonesia and Malaya. The attack in Bali is an absurdity - it's mostly Hindu and Buddhist folk there. Assist the smaller Muslim regimes that are trying to modernize. Finance al Jazira on QT. It's not making much money since the Saudis started an advertising boycott. Finance that Iranian TV station in LA which is so popular in Iran - don't be too anal with the money and don't change a thing they're doing." I agree with the objective of these ideas. But the reality is that our actions doing this will be perceived as an attempt to influence the internal conditions of these countries. For those who have difficulty understanding this human tendency, let me remind them of what happened when the Chinese wanted to influence US politics. They liked the Democrats, so they gave money to the Democrats. When this became public knowledge (as such things typically do), the result was a disaster for the Democrats. Our assistance to these countries should be along the line of influencing them to grow stable and prosperous middle classes. Over the short term, this will have the perverse effect of increasing support for terrorists as this is where the terrorists are typically born and bred. Giving money to Al Jazeera will only have the perverse effect of making Al Jazeera less influential. Instead, what we should do is give Al Jazeera acess rights to interviews with Americans, etc. Humans are a hard sell, as far as propaganda goes. The US has been trying to stop its citizens from smoking, but so far they've had no success. Trying to convince foreigners to like the US may not be much of an easier sell. Re: "Get really serious about denying terrorists funding." I disagree. Funding for terrorists is trivially unimportant. The whole WTC attack took less cash than the tyipcal disgruntled Islamic homeowner in Southern California has in his house. It's utterly impossible to track down amounts of cash that small. Instead of being useful, our activities in that area will only piss off the locals. What the terrorists need, far more than money, is suicidal people. Re: "Drop tariffs against 3rd world countries and do away with subsidies that harm them. Very important." I agree wholeheartedly. Re: "Be serious about Aghanistan. Persevere in building up the national army. Make sure it has no ethnic brigades. Have it protect the main highways and assist in delivering agricultural aid, health services, disaster relief and so on. Make sure Kabul is a safe place. Etc. Be modest there but be really ruthless if you have to be. Catch Paki ISI types there, zap them, by definition they're terrorists. As much as possible deny the warlord types money from foreign countries. DON'T BE TOO AGGRESSIVE IN MODERNIZING THE COUNTRYSIDE - THAT'S WHAT GOT THE RUSSIANS IN TROUBLE. Be persistant in promoting a modern government." All these things are great ideas, but your tone strikes me as paternalistic. The people in Afghanistan have been living there, for better or worse, for many times as long as our fair country has been in existence. Telling them how to run their country is about as useful as telling your teenage daughter what kind of makeup she should wear. Humans are born to rebel. You can give them help, but telling them what to do grates on their nerves. Re: "Now, I know you don't like it but this is the reality: The US is not going to retract from it's[sic] commitments overseas." I've never advocated such a policy. What I've advocated is pulling our troops out of places where there is considerable opposition to them from the locals, unless there is a war going on. In other words, don't try to support the Shah unless the Shah is supported by his people. The basic problem is that sending young men with guns into a country typically alienates the locals against the country that sent them. We should send our troops (in peacetime) only to places where the locals beg for us to be present. These places are easy to detect. If the locals really want you around, they'll do stuff like unlock the Arc De Triomph and have your soldiers march through it. Their citizens will cheer and celebrate when you come into the city. Re: "This is where we might part company. Iraq. The regime there is going down. Hard or easy, it's going down. If it goes down without the US actually invading, Iranians, Saudis, Saudi islamists, and Turks will all be there like flies on a corpse. Turks will want to steal the oil fields around Mosul and cowe the Kurds, Iranians will want to carve out the Shia South (and whack the Kurds on their border because they've always done that), the islamists will want to tip a wallover on Raed, etc." I think you're wrong about the alleged designs of the neighbors of Iraq. It is a general historical trend that nations are now less covetous of each others land. The Turks can barely handle the Kurds they've already got. The Sunnis in southern Iraq are more Arab than they are Sunni. Persian isn't spoken much in Iraq. [see cia.gov ] The last time that the Iranians tried to carve off a chunk of South Iraq the local Iraqis not only failed to come to their cause, but instead rallied to Saddam Hussein's regime. I'm certain the Iranians don't want a repeat of that. But I agree that there would be massive problems with Islamic fundamentalists. -- Carl P.S. Thanks for the long post.