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: JSwanson who wrote (68362)	3/7/2003 2:49:36 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

I believe that the US's desired outcome is to remove Saddam and pursue a multi-lateral solution to install a government that supports freedom both in the country and in the region. CNBC's panel of gurus just refuted that idea. They pointed out that the good guys in this conflict have been people like General Musharaf of Pakistan and Emir of Kuwait who have been able to take a stand against their population and that the only democracy in the region, Turkey, has had a hard time doing the right thing. They finished it off by saying "our policy always favors stability over democracy". In other words, we much prefer a strongman who listens to us rather than a democratic regime that would rather answer to its people. So if in fact you expect to "install a government that supports freedom both in the country and in the region" then prepare to be disappointed as back paddling has already began. Unless of course by "freedom" you mean freedom to fallow US regardless of what your own people want. As to US involvement in WWII, I don't have the time to dig it up. But there was a lot of debate before hand why US should not join the war and a good chunk of it concentrated on the damage it could do to US and how this was a European problem. There were also several persuasions by Churchill to argue along the lines Hitler will be a bigger problem down the road, but Roosevelt never agreed to that and conditioned US involvement upon Britain relinquishing its hold on India and other colonies. Hitler was in fact popular among many segments of US population prior to US involvement. In the end, it was the combination of Japanese attack (which there is some evidence was encouraged by the British) and Churchill's agreement to give up the colonies and the extreme unlikeliness of any retaliations within the US soil that brought US into the war. US involvement was far from the "we just knew in our hearts that this is the right thing to do regardless of costs". If I get the chance, I will dig it up for you. best regards, Sun Tzu PS I hope you are not taking anything I say personally...I'd like you to continue to contribute to the debate.