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.

Technology Stocks : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: augieboo who wrote (8801)	2/26/2003 8:47:07 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 95646

OT -- Augie, I understand the reasoning. And I am not suggesting there is an easy solution. The corner stone of what I have argued in the AMAT thread is precisely the futility of this type of decision process. When we interfere with politics of other countries, especially in such overt manner, our policies are never based on ethics rather than cold hard risk/benefit calculations. This is only natural but short sighted. To Carlucci, it was more important to prevent Iraq (an invader) from defeat than to stop Saddam from breaking the most basic laws of war, i.e using chemical weapons. But to the Kurds and the Shia who's wives and children were being slaughtered by Saddam, nothing could be a greater atrocity. Complete lack of ethics in foreign policy is what gets us into hot spots all over the world. I am not impressed with the moral arguments in removing Saddam because quite simply I don't trust the government. Before I can even consider trusting the government, there needs to be an acknowledgement from the administration that they understand past policies that were made purely based on geopolitical interests and lacked moral fiber were wrong. And that having understood that, they will do their darnest to do the right thing now. But instead all I get is justifications for past policies. Which makes me wondered if we have learned anything. Here is another example for you. The Kurds make up 20% of Iraq's population (that is 1 in 5 people is a Kurd). They are not Arabs and do not wish to speak Arabic or fallow Iraqi traditions. These are the "people" in "Saddam gassed his own people". They are Saddam's "people" in the same sense that the Cherokees were Andrew Jackson's people. During the last decade, they have utilized the northern no-fly zone to establish Kurdish schools and a pseudo government. In the aftermath of the coming war, they have agreed not to claim their greatest historical cities which are the source of oil reserves and have agreed not to claim independence, rather to be part of a federation within Iraq. This is a lot of concession of their part. So what do you think is the administration's answer? A big fat NO. The reason is that Turkey has been oppressing their Kurdish population and is afraid that a flourishing Kurdish culture will add to the Kurdish resistance inside Turkey. Now if you were a Kurd who had witnessed genocide of his people with the tacit approval of US and was now about to be forced under foreign occupation under the force of US troops, what would your reaction be? Yes we would love to have a pro-American regime that would never pose a danger to Israel and protects US interests in the region and keep the order inside the country and that is very democratic and humane BUT you can't have your cake and eat it too. So why don't you prioritize the list of what we want a in Iraq and tell me where human rights and the wishes of Iraqi population stacks in the list. Sun Tzu PS I have enjoyed this thread not being political. Kindly redirect your response on the AMAT thread.