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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (89123)	4/2/2003 10:21:43 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

US foreign policy has improved over time due to better understanding of the rest of the world, but has a long way to go. The intricacies of the 1953 coup against Mossadeq may be better know by you than me, but I base my understanding on declassified documents on the George Washington National Securities archive. Though incomplete, the documents state that the US got involved in this for three reasons - Mossadeq was not willing to equitably settle on oil issues, Mossadeq was destabilizing Iran and the Shah, and he was dealing with an Iranian communist party (Tudeh) and there was a fear that Iran would ally with the Soviets. My understanding is that the Shah was persuaded, or believed, that getting rid of Mossadeq was a good thing. gwu.edu My impression is that you are too young to remember the Cold War first hand. The failure of the Hungarian Uprising and the construction of the Berlin Wall were two of the formative experiences of my youth. To some, Communism under the Soviets a better alternative than the West, so everything the West did to hinder the Soviets is cause for weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. I've read plenty of arguments that Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, were all lovers of freedom and democracy, but the truth is that they were totalitarian murderers. So when I read arguments that Mossadeq was a lover of freedom and democracy, I feel suspicious.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (89123)	4/2/2003 11:24:52 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

I am noticing a common thread among the answers from the "Right Wing". The problem is that people answered you at all. Your question, following your favorite tactic, was a pure strawman. The very question assumes the answer you want and so any attempt to answer the question is doomed from the start. Now you get to go through these answers, claim the moral high ground and ridicule people at the same time. Nice work if you can get it. My question to you is what have you accomplished that couldn't have been accomplished by simply asserting your position in a straightforward declarative sentence? My position, FWIW, is that the idea of a 'moral war' is an intellectual conceit created by people who never have to make the level of decision. It is a red herring. The strategic issues, broadly understood, are the only considerations. The reason why the US is at war with Iraq is that Iraq's neighbors sit on a massive supply of oil AND Iraq keeps developing WMD AND Iraq with WMD could easily control all that oil AND Iraq might provide those weapons to our terrorist enemies. The goals are: - secure the supply of oil from the middle east; and, - cut off a source of funding and weapons to our enemies; and, - provide enough military and economic threat to have leverage in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. All other objectives, removing a tyrant, installing democracy, transforming the region, etc... are derived from one of those two goals. There is no moral case because war is not a moral issue. It is a strategic issue and the decisions are ruthless. The swelling music and waving flags help divert our attention from this hard truth. Paul