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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	4/5/2003 4:43:56 PM
From: Condor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice list. It's gonna make one bitch of big placard though. Good luck. I'm making a list, of specific steps for American Doves to advocate, While I appreciate the attempt, thats not a plan, thats still a "whining and DoNothing" effort. Whats the "PLAN" to make it happen. Each one of those steps needs a plan or is doomed to being just another unread wish list. Structure, organization, financing, lobbying and selling is required. Without a further plan that is "Hadrians Wall", not a list.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	4/5/2003 4:59:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nice list, Jacob. I'm all for Doves advocating real alternatives to the Whine & DoNothing program. It's hardly healthy not to have a working opposition. However, I must nit pick a few items that you list as givens. Particularly: 5. Address the reasons we are hated in so much of the world, rather than just angrily dismissing their complaints and then trying to hammer foreign peoples into submission. Force, especially Force used alone, will increase, not decrease, the support for terrorists throughout the world. Every dead Iraqi or Afghan or Palestinian civilian, equals one more recruit for Al Queda. This last conclusion is hardly so certain as you make it. It is pretty clear that that AQ et. al. used a set of interlocking factors to recruit, among which are: a) the failure of Arab regimes b) the perception that Arab regimes were backed by the West c) the fact that the mosque was the only available arena for political dissent d) the ascendancy of Qutb's ideas as the only set of Arab political ideas that had not been tried and proven failures e) the perception (fostered by 20 years of weak responses) that America was a paper tiger, seemingly strong but with a glass jaw, unable to take casualties, which led to f) the perception that AQ et. al. were strong and on the rise. Now, since we are fighting a bunch of Arab perceptions, many of which are notably untethered to reality, it is not certain how they will respond to our action. But it's just as fair a guess to say that we will explode the idea that we are weak & decandant and can easily be made to run, as to say that every civilian we kill will make a new recruit for AQ. 12. Sign the Kyoto treaty. Even if you are not an environmentalist, this makes sense, as it really pissed off the whole world when we didn't sign it. Nobody else ratified it either, Jacob, they just used it for political cover. While I don't think that the Bush administration's handling of the affair was very bright, signing this POS now would hardly mend matters - and the Senate still wouldn't ratify it. Insist on an Exit Plan, when U.S. troops are sent to foreign conflicts. No open-ended Tar Babies, like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, where our soldiers are committed forever but can't Fix the problem. The best cure for Quagmires is Prevention. Great idea! got any practical suggestions? - say for dealing with Saudi Arabia - the author of all those jihad-teaching madrassahs you want to shut down?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	4/5/2003 7:22:08 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, This list has already been rejected. They are the reciprocal. Because this is what they choose. Their To-Do list has been progressing nicely. Rascal@

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	4/17/2003 7:09:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

1-3 make sense sometimes but not in all situations. 90% persuation would leave Saddam in power until he died a natural death. 4 Generally makes sense and should be the overall goal. However there are times when not supporting one undemocratic force leaves a worse undemocratic force to control the situation. I don't think we should just cut off all ties with and never support the large fraction of the world that is not democratic. I mostly disagree with 5. Force indiscrimantly used will increase terrorism, but lack of force will also increase terrorism. We have to go after terrorists and their supporters, but we can't just go out and push around the whole world. 7 Makes some sense but I don't think we could efficently spend $70bil (or even the $20bil that the government says the war has cost so far) efficently on this. I think we have to try to spend smarter instead of just spending more. I don't support any kind of "Manhattan Project for Energy Independence". The real Manhattan Project developed technology for a specific end. We already have alternate ways to generate energy and technology to conserve enery, it just hasn't made economic sense to use it when oil is much cheaper. Spending $bil or $100 bil on a generalized government research project won't change that. I'm not sure number 9 would work so well. How are we going to shut down madrassahs unless we plan to make half the middle east in to an American empire. Also I have my doubts that we could conceal the fact that any large effort to replace them was funded by the US. A smaller effort with a few schools might work, but trying to eliminate the old ones and bring in tons of replacements under an American initiatve could not be hid. Start following the Geneva Convention; give Guantanamo "illegal combatants" POW status. I'm willing to listen to arguments that this is a good thing, but it isn't something needed under "international law", and it wouldn't make a big difference in perceptions of the US in the Middle East. The main difference that giving them full POW status would cause is that they would have to be released when the war is over. But when does the war end. Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not complelty but if it was I would not support releaseing the terrorist. And the war on terrorism or even just Al-Qaida probably isn't going to be over any time soon. And even if OBL and the top remaining leaders of Al-Qaida did surrender and sue for peace I wouldn't support releaseing the terrrorist. 11. Stop agricultural trade restraints, and subsidies to wealthy corporate American farmers, which is the #1 thing we do that causes poverty in the developing world. Great idea. Helps the US directly as well as helping the developing world. 12. Sign the Kyoto treaty. Even if you are not an environmentalist, this makes sense, as it really pissed off the whole world when we didn't sign it. Not so great idea. If rigidly applied it would be an economic disaster. Anyway for the most part it has not been ratified by other countries and the US Senate would not ratify it if we did sign it. 13. Reform the UN, rather than dissing it. Not a bad idea but very hard to do. 14. Sunshine; follow the lead of S. Korea re the North. I'm not sure this would get us anyware. Of course we haven't gotten much accomplished yet with our current strategy but maybe the mulitilateral talks with China and the US and NK and maybe later Japan and South Korea and Russia will bear some fruit. But then what do we get if NK agrees to shelf their nukes and then keeps building more like the did last time there was an agreement? 15. Use our leverage to Engage in the Israeli-Arab conflict We should encourage a solution but I don't think we can impose anything that would be a real solution. If the actual participants in the conflict can't agree I don't think we can really force peace on them. Insist on an Exit Plan, when U.S. troops are sent to foreign conflicts. No open-ended Tar Babies, like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan Sometimes it makes sense to have an armed presense for a long time. We had to take down the Taliban and now we don't want it or something like it to come back. It makes sense even from purely selfish reasons to try to create some decent order in Afghanistan. Tim

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	9/4/2003 5:33:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So this is your "strategy", eh Jacob? Let's review it for efficacy and pertinence, shall we? 1. 10% Force; 90% persuasion (instead of the other way around). Economic leverage, HeartsAndMinds campaign. Sounds good on it's face... But let's apply it to certain select major events the US and UN has faced together.. With regard to Desert Storm, how about the eviction of invading Iraqi from Kuwait in 1991. Your "10% solution" would have meant that only 50,000 US troops would have been amassed around Kuwait, as compared to the 300,000 Iraqi troops directly in (or in close proximity to) to Kuwait. Very persuasive indeed... What about Korea?... It would have meant defending the south with 10% of the forces the UN amassed to fend off those invading Koreans and Chinese, with no US invasion of Inchon. 2. Multilateralism. Alone, we lose. Do you believe the French intransigence towards forcing Saddam's government was "multi-lateral"? Well, maybe it was, since Germany and Russia stood along side them, drooling over those lucrative oil contracts Saddam was dangling in their faces. But the US applied the multi-lateral approach with regard to obtaining every BINDING UNSC resolution against Iraq. And it obtained a consensus in almost every one of them as to facts related to Iraq's continuing violation of the cease-fire agreement. But when it came to actually obtaining something the UNSC had never issued previously, a UNSC resolution specifically authorizing use of military force, with the possibility of regime change, the US faced opposition from France, Russia, and Germany, the first two having veto ability. But who can blame them given the debt owed to them by Iraq, and those lucrative oil contracts. 3. Strict Reciprocity (with Intermittent Forgiveness), when dealing with hostile nations/organizations. No preventive wars. Recognize that Containment/Deterrance worked with Stalin and Mao, and will probably work with Iran and N. Korea also. Ok... so when a nation invades another nation, as in the case of both Korea and Iraq, the UN should IMMEDIATELY AUTHORIZE a counter-invasion? That's sounds like "strict reciprocity" to me.. What about when N. Korea drills invasion tunnels under the border to the south? Should S. Korea build tunnels heading north? When N. Korea uses mini-subs to place spies in the south, should Seoul reciprocate? When N. Korea attacks S. Korean fishing vessels, should S. Korea reciprocate? When N. Korea shoots S. Korean soldiers across the DMZ, should the south reciprocate? When N. Korea threatens to build nuclear weapons, should Seoul reciprocate? When N. Korea launches missiles over Japan, should Japan reciprocate? Should Japan kidnap N. Korean civilians? And should the US take Iranians hostage and hold them for 444 days? And does not your concept of "reciprocity" justify Israel's retaliatory attacks against Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, as well as their attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon? I think that's enough for this particular response.. I'll respond to your other points in another post.. Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	9/4/2003 5:52:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

4. Mean it, when we say we support Freedom and Democracy. Nobody outside the U.S. believes us, when our leaders say they are the global champions of those ideals. The reason is, so often this is just PR, and the reality is we form close alliances with despotic medieval theocracies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt. Words have to match actions, or we are seen everywhere as hypocrites. But don't mean it enough to rely upon military force to create it? No wonder few people believe we're any different than the oppressive regimes which already govern them. When does "meaning it" involve use of military force Jacob? It's like a pacifist parent scolding their children... "Don't threaten me or I'll whack you one... Really I will... I mean it this time... I'm going to get your father... you bad child, you..." If we "meant it" we wouldn't be so tolerant of non-democratic nations. We wouldn't coddle them, nor show any patience with them. But the reality is that until the recent years, democracies were outnumbered by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. And we made faustian pacts with some of them in order to fight the greater evil that direcetly threatened us. 5. Address the reasons we are hated in so much of the world, rather than just angrily dismissing their complaints and then trying to hammer foreign peoples into submission. Force, especially Force used alone, will increase, not decrease, the support for terrorists throughout the world. Every dead Iraqi or Afghan or Palestinian civilian, equals one more recruit for Al Queda. For one, Jacob.. If we're so "hated", why are so many people literally DYING to get here and possess the American dream? Maybe you need to spend some time outside of the US and discover that for yourself. I don't believe the US should force "people" into submission, but rather the tyrannical and unaccountable governments which oppress them. As for using force against terrorists, if your theory was correct, Afghanistan would literally be crawling with Al-Qaeda right now. And any of them hanging out in Pakistan would be streaming back across the border and over-running the tiny US and NATO force currently there. The reality is that taking out terrorist infrastructure is VERY effective. Killing their leadership, and at times even their family, is also an effective deterrence. Destroying those governments who actively, or even potentially, would harbor those terrorists is also quite effective. In sum... to avoid a reoccurence of 9/11, the only real "homeland defense" is an active and relentless offence against anyone who might be inclined to assist those terrorist networks. And if Saudi Arabia fails to fall in line, they will likely find themselves on the "target list". More responses in the next post...

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	9/4/2003 6:01:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

6. "Let a thousand flowers bloom". Try everything we can think of (that doesn't involve killing people). Fund them, then evaluate them after a year or two, weed out the ones that don't work, expand the ones that do. Oh.. that's good... really good... Do I really need to respond to this inane concept? Shower Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin with love..... I can really see that approach winning them over... Lemmee ask you something... If any of those tyrants had possessed nuclear weapons unilaterally, with no similar US capability, just how much "love" do you think they would have shown us? 7. Take the money we are spending on preventive war (75B$ just for Iraq, just this year, and the total cost will probably be much higher), and spend it on things that separate the guerrillas (Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) from their civilian base of support. All those run social service organizations, that provide schools, hospitals, food, to Muslims. Then they use those organizations, as a cover for propaganda and recruitment and financing. We need to shut them down, by providing an alternative. Shutting them down, without providing an alternative, will just create more despair and anger against us. Finally something I can agree with, except that you're putting the cart before the horse. To do what you're advocating, we'd have to be PERMITTED by the tyranny in charge, to distribute those resources properly. Or, as in the case, of many middle eastern nations, insure the funds were used as specified.. Most governments won't permit the US to engage in activities that subvert the authority/legitimacy of the ruling government, such as independently providing the social services you refer to. They want to control how those funds are spent... That is, after they've taken their share of the money for their palaces, yachts, and fast cars. To ensure that such funding is properly distributed, it must occur outside of the ruling regime, or with direct oversight and accountability to the providers of that aid. I'm a big believer in humanitarian and development aid. But I frown upon implementing such programs when corruption funnels the majority of it away.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	9/4/2003 7:01:50 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

8. Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, to end reliance on energy supplied by unstable regions (Middle East, Venezuela, Nigeria). This will end the need to garrison the ME oil fields. And kick the legs out from under 20 dictators. Absolutely concur.. I've always considered energy independence a matter of national security. But how is this going to wean the rest of the world off of fossil fuels? Someone will still pay them for their oil, and that will mean continuing supplies of cash for their corrupt and/or militant regimes.. All while the US likely kicks the legs out of its own economy by running it on more costly forms of energy. I would love to see a hydrogen driven economy... But it will only happen when the nuclear energy sector is freed up to provide the electricity required to produce it from water. And then the environmentalists will likely complain because we'll literally cause the "deserts to bloom" from all the H20 vapor that is pumped into these climates (Phoenix.. Las Vegas.. etc). 9. Fund, through proxies, a system of madrassahs throughout the world, that preach non-violent Islamic education. Shut down, everywhere we can reach, madrassahs that preach violent Jihad. The US spreading Islam in any form? Really now... are you serious? Should we hire Farrakhan to oversee the program? However, I do believe that moderate Islamic clerics should be provided far more legitimacy than their militant ones. Unfortunately, when your life, and those of your family, are being threatened by militant clerics, the voice of moderation is rather silent. 10. Start following the Geneva Convention; give Guantanamo "illegal combatants" POW status. Let U.S. soldiers abroad be judged by local law, and by international courts. Join the ICC; if we don't like the structure of this international Court to try war criminals, then we should fix it, rather than dissing it. We are following the Geneva convention.. They are being cared and provided for. And some have been released already.. Others will be released later when they are no longer deemed a threat, or we can be assurred they will not be permitted by their native governments to conduct hostile acts against the US again. As for the ICC, forget about it.. I don't like diluting our soveriegnty or permitting our soldiers to become pawns.. Any crimes our soldiers commit can be dealt with under existing SOFA with each respective nation where US troops are stationed. 11. Stop agricultural trade restraints, and subsidies to wealthy corporate American farmers, which is the #1 thing we do that causes poverty in the developing world. Should we drop all tariffs as well? And what about the government "cooperatives" in these developing nations which are really monopoly distribution outlets which pay the farmer/manufacturer sub-market prices for their goods, and then sell those products at global market rates, pocketing the difference into the pockets of the corrupt bureaucrats and dictators in these countries? That's where the REAL problem lies, IMO.. Open these markets and permit farmers/manufacturers to sell at global market prices and pocket the proceeds for themselves. 12. Sign the Kyoto treaty. Even if you are not an environmentalist, this makes sense, as it really pissed off the whole world when we didn't sign it. Not when most of it punishes those nations which have already enacted major environmental reforms, while protecting nations like China from having to meet similar standards. The industrialized nations are not the major polluters of the world now.. It is the developing nation. Better to assist and facilitate enacting appropriate environmental controls from the beginning, where economically feasible and not overly detrimental to economic growth in those nations. 13. Reform the UN, rather than dissing it. Doctor. heal thyself... And start by enforcing its own binding UNSC resolutions against governments which have invaded, conquered, and annexed neighboring states. The UN already has the necessary structure to do its job. What is required is a group of nations willing to put aside their own selfish interests in supporting dictatorships, in the interest of regional/global stability. 14. Sunshine; follow the lead of S. Korea re the North. The quickest route to Regime Change in N. Korea, is to engage them, integrate them into the Global Village, encourage the widest possible exchange of people/goods/capital/ideas across the border. Do nothing to reinforce their Seige Mentality (or ours). All well and good in theory. But integrating them into the "global village" means investing in their economy.. And that means placing capital at risk in a nation where there are no laws in place safeguarding that capital, or the ability to repatriate it or reinvest it. Anything else, such as just paying "protection money", will amount to nothing more than propping up the current regime as it did Saddam's regime through the oil for food program.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (90354)	9/4/2003 7:14:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

15. Use our leverage to Engage in the Israeli-Arab conflict; become a true "honest broker" for peace, rather than 100% backing Sharon. Make U.S. aid dependant on dismantling illegal/small/isolated/new Israeli settlements. I don't believe that Bush is 100% backing Sharon. In fact, I believe Bush has put considerable pressure on his government to restrain itself and not over-react (such as exiling Arafat)... And the fact that Bush has shown himself willing to directly support Palestinian statehood, and promising significant financial assistance for such an entity also goes far... But when your enemy doesn't want to talk peace, what good is it to talk to a wall? The problem is that you can't have a government which permits militant groups to operate from its territory, or undermine it's legitimacy. Hamas and other militant groups must be disarmed, just as the IRA was in Ireland. And Arafat must give up control over the security forces to Abbas, because he is the only one who Sharon is currently willing and able to negotiate with. But failing that, the US should support the building the wall/fence separating the two entities, as well as dismantling their settlements. 16. Insist on an Exit Plan, when U.S. troops are sent to foreign conflicts. No open-ended Tar Babies, like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, where our soldiers are committed forever but can't Fix the problem. The best cure for Quagmires is Prevention. Such as? What was the exit plan when we defeated Japan and Germany? We still have forces there.. And the exit plan for Korea? We still have forces there. Sometimes having US forces stationed in a region goes far to creating more stability than turmoil. In the case of Iraq and the middle east, I believe this to be the case. And we have concrete examples of this as the nations of the region reposition themselves to deal with this new reality. Saudi Arabia, FINALLY, has started dealing forcefully with its militant factions, as well as opened up its financial networks to US investigators. None of that would have happened without US forces in close proximity providing an example in Iraq of lies in store for those nations which harbor terrorists who threaten the US. The best plan for "quagmires" is to properly fight the war. Deny your enemy safe sanctuaries from which to resupply, regroup, and rearm. Target their leadership and financial supporters. And make examples of governments which provide such support. Hawk