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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (67735)	2/11/2003 7:30:47 PM
From: runes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Sun Tzu - <<OK so we may have our terminology crossed.>> Maybe but it is a very important distinction that is frequently blurred. And that is often where the problems begin. <<being able to do something is the same as having the right to do it.>> ...No problem here. As I pointed out in my first post on Iraq the Constitution uses separation of powers to split the Executive branch (ability to act) from the Legislative branch (the right to act). Still not perfect but a marked improvement over the Monarchy and Despotism models. ...But I don't agree with "let nature take it's course". Especially not in the political arena which is a man-made artifice to start with. Specifically - it is human nature to fight for power and to use that power to garner even more power. And that inevitably leads to the Sadams of the world. So I would argue that we have created governments in order to curb the tendency to crave power. ...And then there is the stock market which now finds it needs more rules and governance to curb the Enron style abuses that companies were gravitating towards. <<At the very least, a nation should be true to its values>> That is morality - to live to one's own values. But ethics opposes forcing those values onto other nations. ...Case in point - the Saudis. They have a government - a faux Monarchy. Certainly not up to our ideals but it is stabile. So should we take direct action to bring our values (and culture) to the Saudi population? Or should we turn our back on them and tell them to come back when they are like us? Or should we destabilize them and then tell the Saudi people to work it out for themselves and hope that it doesn't descend into an all out civil war? No, no, and no. ...Ethically, we have no business doing any kind of direct interference with a stabile social system. So our best option is to co-opt the Monarchy. Support them so that they stay open to our ideas and ooze western values and ideals. Which is what we are doing. And even that is causing some social stresses within the population and within the Monarchy. All things considered, we have actually been pretty well behaved. ...Or are you advocating that we interfere in Saudia Arabia? Or interfere even more than we have? <<In other words the wishes of the 56% Shia and the 20 odd percent Kurds should be respected>> ...First a quibble. Just like morals and ethics - wishes and needs are frequently confused and cause great problems. The Kurds want autonomy and probably the Shia as well. But it is not clear to me that that will "best" meet their needs. My gut tells me that the best immediately solution is to maintain the integrity of the existing structure and then evolve it from there after it returns to stability. ...A bit of cautious optimism here - apparently there are 2 million Iraqis in the US and a large number of organizations that are wrapped up under the Iraqi National Congress. They have been in touch with the Bush Administration and are drawing up strategies on how they can implement a US/Iraqi civilian government that encompasses Shia, Kurd and Sunni. ...And along similar lines the Admin was grilled today by the senate foreign comittee about post war planning. Democrats, Republicans, and retired army all had very skeptical questions about the "end game". << don't believe that everyone who makes half as much money as I is just lining up to rob me at gun point>> No, not everyone. But of a hundred thousand who are below you there are probably a thousand that would act out of spite or jealousy. Or have you never caught a contractor padding his bill? And, yes, one or two would even resort to armed robbery if given the opportunity. ...And that is even before you factor in that anytime you get involved in a dispute - right or wrong - someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. And the loser will resent you. Just ask any judge. But refusing to serve as a judge is a poor solution to that problem. As is leaving the disputers to their own devices. <<Hutu/Tutsi>> ...The British may have exploited the tribal rivalries but those rivalries were still and are still at the core of the conflict. I mentioned the amplification of advanced technologies - I include the deceptions of statecraft in that category. And don't even get me started on the British!