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: Fred Levine who wrote (69034)	3/28/2003 11:42:34 AM
From: runes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Fred - let me simplify your paths to peace - Co-Opt and Confront. Also known as the carrot and the stick. Theory Y and Theory X. Which evolved to theory Z - use both the carrot and the stick as appropriate. ...All pretty standard stuff. But, as always, the devil is in the details. In the case of Iraq - we have already been through theory Y, be nice to Saddam, during the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations. But that came with a cost - we ended up making a monster into a mini-mega monster. Shame on us. Then we (via the UN) went to theory Z - the carrot and the stick. In this case the stick was sanctions and the no-fly zones. And the carrot was status and survival. And the cost was continued brutality (around 1000 people a year murdered and many more tortured and maimed). Plus the continued nagging threat of WMD. ...Clearly not a faustian bargain but one that we were able to live with for twelve years. And then came GWB who upped the ante. Which put Baghdad on it's heels - allowing inspections, U2 overflights, missile destruction. It may not have eliminated the WMD but, at the very least, it was a disruption to such programs - if they exist. And it could have paved the way for 1) improved sanctions and 2) continuous monitoring. And now we have gone to theory X - no more status and a serious threat to survival. The ultimate benefit - no more threat of WMD and (hopefully) an end to the continuing brutality. ...But the cost - $2.5 billion/day, civillian casualties, increased terror threat, destroyed infrastructure, is significant. AND IT IS GROWING! We are clearly not prepared for the level of humanitarian aid which is needed right now. And I fear that Saddam is in the process of upping this ante by flooding us with Shia casualties that will require both humanitarian and medical aid. It is not inconceivable that we could be left with the aftermath of a Shia genocide done slowly and methodically in front of our very eyes. (It may have already started). And that is where we are at now. And so it begs the question - are we better off now than we were one month ago? ...I submit that that answer is clearly and unambiguously -NO. Which leads to the next question - will we be better off next year than we were last year? ...Here , I would submit, the jury is still out. It is still possible that we can storm Baghdad quickly and bring a quick end to this brewing tragedy. But it is also possible that this will drag on for months with the human cost growing exponentially. Bush's big gamble. And I am sorry but the UN/France/Germany/...s theory Z solution is looking better and better with each passing day.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (69034)	3/28/2003 4:45:24 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

A plan for peace There are a few things that need to happen. The first is understanding that Violence (war, terrorism, street fight...) is a human issue and not tactical one. In other words, by and large when human beings are content they do not resort to violence. In fact we don't even need to be very content to abstain from violence. Looking at it as human issue also means understanding the emotional side of it. The Iraqis for example have the national psyche of a rape victim or a battered wife syndrome. As probably do some of the other hot spots in the world. The treatment is not really so different on the national level than on a personal level. This means 3 stages each probably taking few years, (1) give them room and stay away, even if they snap at you (2) Give them an outlet to release their anger and talk. This was brilliantly illustrated by Mandela in South Africa and I even saw a smaller version of it when ABC held a town meeting between Palestinians and Israelis. People need time to shout, cry, and most of all feel that they are being understood. (3) start with the premise of mutual respect and equality. Though not by design, you can see these stages worked well in South Africa, in Iran, and in Viet Nam. This is how you transform a trouble spot to a normal spot. Next let's talk about how to have peace (as oppose to submission and cease fire) in all the normal parts of the world. The principles are not so different than citizens' lives inside a federation. We start with the premise that while every state wants to progress as best as it can, it is in everyone's interest to be part of a more successful and prosperous federation than to be ahead by themselves. This can be seen by say comparing Blair to Saddam. Inside Iraq, Saddam has the greatest military power. He also has the most economic power. He rules there supreme and he has used his military and economic power to get all the best for his family and then his sub-clan and then his clan, and whatever is left is gone to the regular Iraqis for whom he really does not care but they provide services so he considers them mildly useful. If you think about it, this is not so different than the way our national policy is made. We care primarily for our people, then for the western allies, then for our major trading partners, and eventually the little people may matter too, though we really don't care what may go on in Congo. So it should not be surprising that our world suffers the same problems that warlord societies do. Now let's look at Blair: He is the leader of a party (his clan) and at the moment is heading the country. Everyday, his clan may have their own issues with him, but in general they are on his side against the other parties/clans. This is analogous to saying that the French will always back French more than they would back Americans. And this is true, but it does not mean chaos and dictatorship has to ensue. Similarly, the other parties do play dirty and call Blair into Parliament to explain himself. They are really interested to see him make a fool of himself. And I am sure Blair finds it tiring to deal with the parliamentary politics. And yes sometimes he loses and when that happens he vacates the office until he can regain it again. But in the end, Blair and his party are much better off than Saddam and Ba'thies, even though theoretically Saddam should have been able to pocket all the oil money and enjoy his absolute control. Have this analogy for now and think about it if you like, and I will get back to you with a more itemized blueprint of how to achieve world peace. Sun Tzu