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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4987)	2/27/2003 5:12:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I think it's valid for him to bristle at the notion of a solution being imposed on a Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim country by a Western, Christian nation. Iraq itself is a "solution" impose on a Middle Eastern, Arab, Muslim area by a Western Christian nation. I don't really think the imposition of a solution on Iraq by another Arab, Muslim country would be inherently better then a similar imposition by the US. I made a similar point once about South Africa under Apartheid vs. the abuse in most of the rest of Africa. If I am getting bashed over the head I don't really care much what the skin color or religion of the person doing it is. Some people would say South Africa's actions where more wrong then similar or greater abuse in other nations because they where motivated by racial differences but if it is motivated by just plain old lust for power I don't see that as being any better. Also a lot of the conflict and abuse in the rest of Africa is and was motivated by tribal differences... I guess I don't buy the whole "cultural imperialism." argument. If it was an imposition on a primitive tribe that didn't interact with the rest of the world maybe it would be ok but once you start effecting the rest of the world the rest of the world effects you. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (4987)	2/27/2003 5:12:27 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

You could also say he is a bulwark against fundamentalism in the region. That is why the Kuwaitis and the Saudis supported him in his war with Iran (and why we supported him). They didn't want to see that vital waterway, which the war was really being fought over, in the hands of a country run by Mullahs. A fundamentalist Muslim state in Iraq could be a good deal more destabilizing and more of a threat to us, then Saddam is or ever has been. That Saudis know that it could certainly be a huge threat to them if Saddam was replaced by anything like an Iranian type of government. I wouldn't count on the US to be able to install anyone in power there. Once Saddam is gone, Iraq will be a wild card- and it could certainly get a lot worse in the region.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4987)	2/27/2003 10:14:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

But isn't the solution really being imposed by the UN? After all, the UN has been demanding that he disarm for, what, 12 years? Bush has said clearly that if he disarms there's no war. So we're not imposing the solution, we're just the instrument by which the solution actually does get imposed, if you get the distinction. And for someone who treated the Kurds the way he did, I'm not sure you can grant him the right of opposing cultural imperialism as a principle anyhow, can you?