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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (74446)	2/16/2003 1:01:42 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, we've got the troops on the way. You would prefer we attack Saudi Arabia at this point? You would support that?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (74446)	2/16/2003 6:28:39 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think what most unsettles the French, Germans, etc., is how open-ended our goals seem to be. The reasons made for "regime change" in Iraq, can equally well be made against a whole group of other governments. What's wrong with that? This is the modern world. That these folk want to continue operating with the equivalent of 14th century world views is absurd. The Saudis finally are unnerved enough to talk about participatory reforms (and obviously therefore diminishing the role of primitive theologians in running the society). The French and Germans know perfectly well that the US pre-emptive policy, however primitive it might be, is not aimed at them and instead is aimed at a small handful of countries that are run by barbarians who deserve what ever dreadful end might come to them. The events of 9/11 show the world has become too small to continue allowing these wretched governments and rulers to continue existence. That French and German leaders don't seem to get this or don't think it's important reflects badly on them. That large numbers of their citizens don't get it reflects badly on their public educational systems. Personal dictatorships and theological tyrannies have no place in the modern world. Even the Chinese are starting to get it. Our pre-emptive attacks, our "regime-changing", should be reserved for Terrorist Safe Havens, places where the government allows terrorist groups to organize, recruit, get funding, train, spread their ideology. The pan-Arab Baathist ideology is every bit as primitive as the muslim fundamentalist one deriving from Saudi Arabia. In both cases the ideology is anti-modern, anti-democratic and anti-reason. It doesn't follow from this I mean military attack agains the Saudis is necessarily a good idea but if there is no pressure put to them, they won't make an effort to change. IMO, deterrence and containment are the best way to deal with bad governments that are threatening WMD and conventional war on others. They can be deterred, because they have something to lose. This worked on Mao and Stalin, and so it should work on the likes of Saddam and Kim. Mao and Stalin were somewhat restrained by things you mention but they also acted against the West through proxies - remember the Cold War [Do we want to go back to that?] - whereas Kim and Hussein are trying to get to that sort of position. Deterrence and containment thus are less important in their effect on them - K & H have less to lose and more to gain. They also believe they're smarter than the leaders of US and other countries, and that the principles of their opponents are weaknesses. They will always persist in the endeavors until they are removed from power - they will continue with their weapons development and use them directly, or indirectly, against their neighbours. Neither Kim nor Hussein can be expected to behave reasonably as reasonably is defined by their enemies. There's nothing in it for them. Saddam thinks the US would behave reasonably if it either invaded or made a deal with him - right now, he thinks the US is behaving unreasonably. Reasonable, for Saddam and Kim is a deal they can renege on. Reasonable for the US is a deal they can rely on.