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: michael97123 who wrote (68171)	1/23/2003 7:22:02 PM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

yes, there is oil off Vietnam.

To: michael97123 who wrote (68171)	1/23/2003 7:42:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

<<...trained at the University of Chicago by Hans Morgenthau who was quite prominent in those days--he wrote the text book in Foreign Affairs...>> Mike: Right now the most famous foreign policy guru at the University of Chicago is John J. Mearsheimer (according to tekboy he is very highly regarded)...Here is a passage from an article Mersheimer wrote last fall... 'Realists' Are Not Alone in Opposing War With Iraq ksg.harvard.edu <<...Although the United States would almost certainly win such a war, armed conflict with Iraq would divert resources and attention from the more important task of eliminating the terrorist threat. There is no serious evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda today, but war with Iraq would fuel anti-American sentiments in the Arab and Muslim world, making it easier for bin Laden and his ilk to recruit new martyrs to their cause. War with Iraq could also destabilize the region, and ousting Saddam would force the United States to occupy and police Iraq for many years. Moreover, Iraq does have military options that could impose serious costs. If one is really worried about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, why place Saddam in a situation where he has nothing to lose? In short, an invasion of Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. It doesn't take a realist to figure this out, however -- it only takes someone who is sensible, reasonably objective, and focused on the American national interest...>> CAN SADDAM BE CONTAINED...? HISTORY SAYS YES. Here's a link to an excellent 12-page paper that John Mersheimer and Professor Stephen Walt (from Harvard) wrote on whether Saddam can be contained... wcfia.harvard.edu ________________________ Vigilant containment can work. Some of the top foreign policy experts agree that this is possible...It's too bad Bush has surrounded himself with hardline NeoCon WarHawks (like Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz)...Its nice to have a little 'balance' when making decisions that can impact thousands of lives around the world. Unfortunately, I feel it may be very difficult for Colin Powell to have the influence that many of us would like him to have. -s2@toobadBushdoesn'thaveJohnMersheimerasaforeignpolicyadvisor.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (68171)	1/24/2003 9:33:45 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Had the US involvement in Viet Nam been based, in part, on the historical animosity between China and Viet Nam and not on anti-communism, democracy, and oil then perhaps things would have been different today. I recall reading somewhere that Ho Chi Mhin tried to contact the US government for aid after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. You may well be right that the loss of China may have played a role in the anti-communism that affected foreign policy towards Viet Nam at the time. During the same time that you wrote about democracy having to do with US involvement in Viet Nam I argued that supporting dictators in South Viet Nam was anti-democratic and therefore counter-productive. All kinds of views exist and existed about that painful period of US history. The result of the Viet Nam policy from 1954-1976 is telling. >50,000 US dead, >2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, communism in a united Viet Nam, Pol Pot, and so on. This is what so-called principles have gotten the US. And that record is why I suspect that principles never really played a part in the decision to go into Viet Nam. As for Saddam, well the US government created that monster and one should expect that he will act as such if attacked. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be removed, only that the dangers be recognized, both those in getting rid of him and those in setting up a new regime.