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: LindyBill who wrote (61948)	12/16/2002 1:34:44 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi LindyBill; It's not obvious to me that it's stupid. Think about that book you just read on Maximilian and Juarez (for book report see #reply-18282748 ). There comes a time when Napoleon III has decided to pull his troops out of Mexico. People sympathetic to Juarez in the US are asking the US to actively support the rebels, but Seward refuses to get involved. His reasoning is that getting involved will only make it more likely that the French would stiffen their resolve. So he waits the French out, and eventually the US gets everything it wants without having to get into a pissing match with the French. More on the subject of Seward and the Mexican civil war includes this interesting review on the international implications of the US civil war: civilwarinteractive.com Biography of Seward includes this fascinating indication of what kind of stuff gets talked about inside an administration: ... He believed that the Union could be saved without a war, and that a policy’ of delay would prevent the secession of the border states, which in turn would gradually coax their more southern neighbours back into their proper relations with the Federal government. In informal conferences with commissioners from the seceded states he assured them that Fort Sumter should be speedily evacuated. Finding himself overruled by the war party in the cabinet, on the 1st of April 1861, Seward suggested a war of all America against most of Europe, with himself as the director of the enterprise. The conduct of Spain toward Santo Domingo and of France toward Mexico, and the alleged attitude of England and Russia toward the seceded states were to be the grounds for precipitating this gigantic conflict; and agents were to be sent into Canada, Mexico and Central America to arouse a spirit of hostility to European intervention. Dangers from abroad would destroy the centrifugal forces at home, and the Union would be saved. When this proposal was quietly put aside’ by the president, and Seward perceived in Lincoln a chief-executive in fact as well as in name, he dropped into his proper place, and as secretary of state rendered services of inestimable value to the nation. ... 26.1911encyclopedia.org Anyway, the problem with giving the students direct assistance is the effect this has on the part of the country that is *not* sympathetic to the US. Our assistance makes it look like the students are stoolies for American ambitions. It's better if the conservative Iranians face the fact that those are their kids bitching and whining, and the US is not a part of it. Our foreign policy objective is not to help the students make trouble for the Iranian government, but instead to have Iran governed by a regime that is more friendly to the US. Student revolts are not usually successful in pulling down governments, though sometimes they do have long term influence. Tianamen square 1989, Mexico City 1968, Kent State 1970, France / Italy 1968 come to mind as examples. While it was widely assumed that the Soviet Union had a hand in some of the late 60s student problems in the west, the Soviets wisely kept a reasonably low profile in this. If they'd been the primary organizing spirit, complete with discussions beamed by radio into the US, it would have made it that much more difficult for the students to convince others that their cause was something other than just a bunch of Communist dupes. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the Iranian people are, by and large, similar to other peoples of the world in being largely patriotic. Making obvious attempts to influence them will inevitably backfire. Our path is the only successful one. As these more or less backwards nations decide that they want to compete with us, they will be forced to emulate us. If we simply ignore them, they will drop like ripe fruits into our hands. -- Carl

To: LindyBill who wrote (61948)	12/16/2002 9:52:39 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A story like this drives me up a tree. How can we be so incredibly stupid? Assuming the reporter got the story right (and it's hard to see how he might have gone wrong), I completely agree.

To: LindyBill who wrote (61948)	12/16/2002 11:04:20 AM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Respond to of 281500

Casey Kasem or Freedom ? Hollywood, the RIAA and Microsoft are really running things is what this appears to be finally about. But in the long run, these reactionaries still desperately trying to control things in Iran will fall for the same reasons the Soviet Union did, free radio stations or no. Trofim Lysenko probably did more from inside in helping the Soviet downfall than we ever did supporting military action in the likes of Afghanistan, and the reactionary mullah's are now doing their part for the Islamist states. Just give them due time...