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 New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (5939)	3/8/2003 12:25:25 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 12231

M, Thanx for posting "The Pentagon's New Map". Although it's a simplistic presentation of complex empires, it has merits in providing structured steps towards a braver new world. Mass consumption of geopolitical discussions tends to amuse and confuse rather than lead to a common way forward. Accenting differences does promote understanding, however, it takes true empathetic leadership to rule such a dynamic roost. As Colin Powell has discovered, we're a long way from such a world order. I have come to feel that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are on the right track and that is quite a change from my initial thoughts. Many of the other "world" leaders are just struggling to muster gain (or minimize loss) without expending pain. Their form of leadership is out of sync with global development and has me shaking my head. Pre 9/11/01, I always felt that Oil and Islam; North vs South; Global Development or whatever one wants to call it was the real brewing challenge. The perceived disparities in breaking down true global inequalities appeared to be the root cause of frequent obscure quasi-terrorist acts and numerous Mafioso exploitations. The "gains" of globalization made it easy for us all to totally mask our neglect of these issues. Just consider the "work" of Kudlow and Crammer! Even numerous intakes of Lester Thurow's words on the progression of civilizations through continuous revolving cycles of military, academia and capitalistic leadership didn't tweak me to pay more attention. After 9/11/01 and the dot.com bust, I was most relieved because the fear (or terror) factor was finally out of the closet and on the table. We have come a long way from the burst of those bubbles. The challenges were much greater than I surmised. We have advanced our understanding of the problem of inequity, prepared to face injustice and developed new coping skills. Fortunately, these will be passed on to the upcoming generation. They are the ones who will be most impacted by upcoming actions. At best, it will take many generational changes to bring about any sustainable resolution. Although I'm tenuous, I honestly believe that we are making progress, and, it is quite in line with the current ways of the world. If I am correct, mistakes (or unexpected outcomes) will be easier to manage and we will be able to move from crisis to crisis without getting boggled down continually accounting for our past actions. As Qualcomm shareholders, we are highly dependant on steady, save and equitable global development; especially in developing nations. I believe they will prosper from empowering the developing world. Some folks (Europeans, Wall Street, ???) appear to consider such an adventure, A Matter of Impinging on Good Fortune. Could they be living in an older world? Getting back to your article, I particularly liked the thought of regional security. It has much better optics than war. Sometimes, I wonder if we need to revert back to a modern form of colonialization. If only each developed nation of the world could make an active commitment to adopt a developing nation as their brethren. But that might be too simple. After all, when it matters, it appears remote National Geographic tribes get along in more productive ways than those considered civilized. But I jest. • And then there's AIDS. Trevor

To: Neeka who wrote (5939)	3/8/2003 9:41:38 AM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12231

France and Japan, and Germany were all overunn by Americans, seems they are better places since then. Last I checked America had no pretext to staying there. Lets not mention Korea too. Americans spread Ideals not armies, pick up a text book.

To: Neeka who wrote (5939)	3/8/2003 9:48:45 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12231

re: I hope that you take the time to read this. I already have. I first read the "Core/Gap" analysis in a similar article months ago in a print magazine at the doctor's office. It's an interesting take, as it provides a tidy way to conceptualize and organize the forces that threaten developed world communities - meaning the "haves" who aspire to retain and expand their resources. The preferred method of countering threats from outside the Core - the least messy method - is through voluntary absorption... where less developed regions convert to the globalization model in a willing or passive manner in return for promised "trickle down" benefits. In regions like the Middle East, things are messier for a plethora of reasons. Over the history of our relationship with the Middle East, we've given a rat's ass about "democracy". Indeed, this is true for all "Gap" regions, where we first aspire to stability - in any form - that will allow us unfettered access to resources and raw materials, as well as access to any consumer markets that may evolve. (I'm not making an ethical observation. This hunger for resources and markets isn't inherently immoral or moral. It's amoral. It's global capitalism.) Contrary to recent concerns regarding Iran, the US does not covet ownership of the oil - but ready access to the oil at reasonable market prices. Ownership is irrelevant. Indeed, who extracts and refines in the Middle East? Arabs? No. It's the multi-national corporations. The corrupt government in Saudi Arabia, who would not still be in power without our support, works hand-in-hand with the multi-nationals, skims off proceeds to live a lavish lifestyle, and uses the remainder to control the region's population and keep the door to the gas station open. For years, these corrupt governments garnered sufficient receipts from selling their oil to literally buy off their populations with generous government stipends. However, due to a surging population boom and a shrinking oil dividend on a per-capita basis, such largess was no longer possible, and force and corruption became the economically expedient means of control. The US was and is perfectly content with this arrangement - provided its unfettered access to resources is maintained. However, Middle Eastern street anger has boiled over the rim of the regional pot, and threatens to flood over US shores. Revolutionary forces perceive, correctly, that without the US projection of power - in the form of dollars - into their neighborhoods, corrupt governments would be unable to maintain their grip. In order to win self-control, the gas station has to close. So now the US looks for a timely, cost effective fix to the situation. However, the only viable fix is not timely, and nestles in one of the few optimistic "Gap" accounts from your referenced "Pentagon's New Map": 12) IRAN-- Counterrevolution has already begun: This time the students want to throw the mullahs out. • Iran wants to be friends with U.S., but resurgence of fundamentalists may be the price we pay to invade Iraq. • The mullahs support terror, and their push for WMD is real: Does this make them inevitable target once Iraq and North Korea are settled? A counterrevolution has (or had) indeed begun in Iran - not just with students, but with a growing pseudo middle class, that held real promise for moderation and positive, pro-Core change. Of course, the Administration's imminent plans in the region will uterly smother this pro-"Core" movement while empowering and inflaming fundamentalist forces in Iran. Ironically, over time, if left alone to bud and develop, Iran might well have evolved into the home-grown showcase democracy that the Administration claims it seeks as an example to the region. Why are there the beginnings of pro-Core change in Iraq now? I'd argue that this change is the fruit of a 20-year gestation and growth cycle, which began when the Shah, and the projection of US dollars and arms that kept him in power, were terminated. I'd further argue that the length of this growth cycle can no more be sped up nor skipped than a human embryo's 9 month growth cycle in the womb. Just as a student must work through a lesson by himself to truly understand the process - a country or region must work through its conflicts on its own and reach its own conclusions, in order for those conclusions to have meaning. Just as a student who is given the answer to a problem is no better off in understanding the problem or the next problem that comes along - a country who has a system forced on it from the outside will neither understand it nor be able to apply its principles in future, no matter the benevolence of the intent or the quality of the system. In fact, confusion and resentment are the likely response. This is the sheer folly of the administration's most recent rationalization for occupying Iraq: That they will bring democracy - an utterly foreign concept in the region - to the Middle East. It's as if democracy is a modular McDonald's franchise that can be unpacked anywhere. Simply read the owner's manual - and start flipping liberty burgers. How would early US colonies have reacted if England had projected its power into the new continent? How would the colonies have reacted if England, posing as offering benevolent guidance with the political development of the new world, and interested in absorbing the colonies into it's global "Core", injected itself into colonial politics? Of course, the Administration is not serious at all: If a democratic majority consensus were allowed power in these countries, Islamic extremists would rule and the US would be out on its ear. What the Administration intends to do is restore order in the region by force and the threat of force. As Israelis are learning the hard way, the effort will backfire. As long as the US perceives this struggle as a simplistic battle between good and evil... Without a real understanding of the opposition's motivations... Without an unvarnished accounting of our own interests and history in the region... We fail.