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: Doc Bones who wrote (104918)	7/12/2003 11:08:26 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<LET'S LOOK, AND THINK HARD, BEFORE WE LEAP INTO LIBERIA>> No doubt this is a fact finding trip for GWB, to see how other countries in Africa would respond to any action the US would engage in. Makes me wonder if out on the horizon there could be a USA , a United States Of Africa, or perhaps a USA plus a UNA (Union of south africa and union of north africa). I am not up to speed on the area covered by the USA. . Technology is moving faster than politics today and should be considered for improving conditions in general, in Africa. Africa seems to have very few resources per person, making efficiency more important there. They could do a much better job overall by having centralized rail or transportation systems with standardized equipment,tracks, signs, and laws. Same with most utilities, electrical, dams and water rights, telephones and wireless communication systems.A common language There would be a need for local chiefs to give up some rights and powers, remotely possible if they could picture something to gain in exchange. But usually it requires an outside threat for States to band together for a greater good. Mexico and South America have made great strides in business and industry, is it time for Africa? Our best bet for helping the people of Africa would be to provide what we are best at doing, construction and planning and trade.It is somewhat futile to provide just food and money which would be merely temporary relief . Would it be wrong or immoral to help the Africans in some way and at the same time knowing we would profit by contracts and future trade? And feel good about it by emphasizing that we do it to help the oppressed and downtrodden.? A lot of homefolks seem to believe it was not worth the effort to help the Iraqis in that area. Sig

To: Doc Bones who wrote (104918)	7/12/2003 2:21:49 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

I agree with this: LET'S LOOK, AND THINK HARD, BEFORE WE LEAP INTO LIBERIA One of the biggest questions we face if we go in....is Khadafy....What to do about him and his minions.... >>>>>>>>>>But in the 1980s, Libyan leader Muammar Khadafy dispatched a group of savage "liberation" leaders from his guerrilla training camps to ravage the entire West of Africa. In Liberia, Khadafy's man is the country's present president, Charles Taylor, as brutish and pathological a thug as they come. Not only is he looting his country of its diamonds, he is one of the instigators of the chopping off of arms and legs of large numbers of the Liberian people. Now, a rebel group, "Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy," is besieging Monrovia. In the anarchic chaos, no one is sure what this group really wants, either, besides getting Taylor out.<<<<<<<<

To: Doc Bones who wrote (104918)	7/12/2003 2:59:17 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Why is it so hard for the U.S. to keep its eye on the ball? Remember, we are in a war, a war on "terror", which is really a war on global Islamic fundamentalism? Remember, there are real threats the U.S. faces, real national security threats, threats we have not dealt with yet? In the war on Islamic fundamentalism, we have committed so many troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, that we now don't have enough troops available to even make a credible threat against any more nations. N. Korea, Iran, Syria, they know we do not have the capability to occupy them, and therefore our ability to influence them is diminished. We are losing the war, because of our inability to focus on the places where our enemies are, and are unable to maintain that focus till we achieve lasting results. We overthrew the Taliban. That was the only useful effort we've made, so far in the war. Everything since then has been a failure, misplaced or counter-productive effort. The Administration evidently thought they had won in Afghanistan, as soon as they had won the conventional war. Our focus shifted to Iraq, and Afghan nation-building never happened. As a result, our enemies have regrouped, and the battle goes on there. Our entire effort in Iraq was counter-productive. We won a conventional war; we are losing a guerrilla war; we have suffered a serious defeat in the HeartsAndMinds war, which is the decisive campaign. Our enemies are untouched in their strongholds: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, N. Korea. We do not control the Afghan-Pakistani border, and we have not conquered the Iraqi people (as distinct from the Iraqi conventional army). Our strategy seems to be, to hit the enemy at his periphery, and ignore the core. Bush simply doesn't see reality; he doesn't see how badly we are losing the war, how victory in conventional war is counter-productive, and puts us even further behind in winning the guerrilla war. He thinks he is winning his war, so he thinks he has the luxury of this "feel-good" humanitarian effort in Liberia. So, our army, already stretched to the limit, with tours of overseas duty already being extended, gets stretched a bit more. Troops get committed to a place where there is no national interest at stake. The only optimistic comment I can make about this, is that it will hasten the day when Americans realize that Bush's methods are not working; hasten the day when we re-evaluate our basic assumptions and methods, and perhaps adopt ones that have a chance of bringing victory.