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: Cary Salsberg who wrote (68390)	3/9/2003 11:34:42 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

> I think you and Sun have missed my point. For all of human history, the more powerful conquered the less powerful... I see your point. Yes this is true. Certainly US did better than many had done in times of past. Of course you could also say that at the end of WWII the world had seen enough blood and did not want to see more of it. You could also say that we found a more efficient way to build our empire (more like the Vikings than Romans). Still, we get credit for not doing it the way Soviets did. So yes, we were better. > The supposed fear of terrorism is prompting this administration to use our pre-eminent position of power in ways that were rejected after WW2. I am not sure if this is accurate. From what I have read, this administration is fallowing Paul Wolfovitz's ideology. Which is basically now that we are the only superpower standing, we should do everything we can to maintain that superiority and use the power to reshape the world in the way most profitable to us. Today I also read an "analysis" of US policy as being "Realistic" oriented. The analysis had so many flaws in it that I did not bother to write a refutation to. But it seems that many buy into it. "Realist" politics was defined as a zero sum game in which someone makes it to the top because the previous guy at the top didn't manage to destroy the runner up. Everybody else was then either fallowing the "minimalist" path or "maximalist" path. Either way it was do as the top dog and live, go against him and die. I've also listened to many senators and policy makers. They all harp on variations of these themes. But when you see through all the hype and justifications, these are all arguments for law of the jungle. They all have too dark a view of the world. However, just as most nations have evolved to replace acts of pure self interest with the rule of law, so will the international community eventually come to believe that. The sooner our policy makers see that inevitable destination, the sooner we can get there and with much less bloodshed. Sun Tzu

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (68390)	3/10/2003 3:26:29 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Cary, I do not disagree with your assessment of the noble role that the US played during WWII and its immediate aftermath. But now that the US is the sole surviving superpower, with unsurpassed military supremacy, which some say is equal to the strength of the next twenty nations combined, we are obsessed with threats of a different kind -- asymmetric warfare from rogue nations or stateless organizations. It is as if we have just awoken from a dream of unimagined peace, prosperity, and power to suddenly find ourselves vulnerable in ways we had never imagined. And the reaction of this administration is to expend an enormous amount of political and economic capital to try to overturn a single rather insignificant domino, and in so doing is being seen by the world for the first time since the Vietnam War as the Big Bully. We are in the process of undermining much of the prestige and goodwill we have created over the past 60 years. Although I owe much to this great nation and the ideals for which it stands, I sincerely believe we have taken a turn on the wrong path, and if we do not soon turn back, we risk invalidating those same ideals. Sam

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (68390)	3/11/2003 2:25:50 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

This weekend, the President of one of the major Kurd groups was on C-Span. When asked a question by an "anti-war" person, he lost his calmness and became quite irritated. he stated that he could not understand the anti-war position in the case of Iraq, because war has been going on with the country for almost 30 years. He pointed to 182,000 Kurds missing and unaccounted for as well as hundreds of villages destroyed, and thousands gassed. In addition, he went on listing the atrocities of Saddam engaging in war against his own people. His criticisms, as mine, were against the UN. He certainly spared no one, including the US indifference to the plight of the Iraqi people. However, his major criticisms were against the french and the Germans, as well as those people, who he claimed not to comprehend, who stated they were peace, while burying their heads in the sand while war against Iraqis continued. I have not heard anyone support Saddam. However, if the Kurdish president is correct, and I believe he is, how can we justify continuing slaughter of Iraqis without taking the necessary action. The Kurdish president stated that the war within Iraq is continuing. I was especially interested in the response of callers to him who were critical of the US. He repeatedly stated that the US was the only real hope for relief from a brutal tyrant. The callers lost a good deal of their righteous indignation when hearing some of the Kurdish experiences. Altho I am not a Bush fan, I am disappointed at the unanalytic mud-slinging that is going on in this thread. IMO, the current inaction of the UN is terrible. What it points out is that the UN does not exist as a positive force. Rather, it is a collection of countries advancing their own self-interest agendas. We all know the facts: TotalFinaElf has oil contracts, as does Lukoil, and Schroeder needs votes. In addition, Germany and france are far bigger trading partners with Russia than the US. Of course, the US has national interests as well. Please don't attack on that basis. fred