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 (105861)	7/16/2003 8:40:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, that is explicitly the NeoCon agenda. I don't think it is, but either way its not relavent to my question. You said - " In Kuwait in 1991, we had total military control of that tiny nation. We chose to re-install the Emir. We could have made him a powerless figurehead, and held elections for a government that derived its powers from the people, but we decided not to. Who would have stopped us? Who could have?" I replied - "Should we install new governments any time we help a country out with military force? We had a lot of military in Saudi too should we have driven M1s into Riyadh?" I didn't ask if it was part of the Neocon agenda. Is it part of your agenda. And if not then why do you make an implied critism of US policy for not kicking out the Emir. Tim

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (105861)	7/16/2003 9:53:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

They say that liberal democracy will follow where our soldiers go. So would you say that it's not worth a single drop of blood, either our's or their's, in order to create the conditions where liberal democracy can potentially take root? Btw, all totalitarian regimes collapse into criminal organizations. Because that's essentially what those governments are in the first place. We just call them Baathist, Maoist, Marxist, etc..., in order to be "scientific". But they are really political mafias.. Criminal organizations held together through fear of the "Godfather". Remove him from the picture and they will all vy for power amongst one another.. But in the case of Iraq, before they can do that, they have to get rid of the US troops preventing them from seizing power. But, as I have repeatedly stated in great detail on this thread, I'm not in favor of garrisoning the ME oil fields. And I think it is a futile, utopian project, to attempt to remake those nations in our image. Well, goodness... Tell that to Japan and Germany... It certainly wasn't "futile, nor "Utopian" to completely restructure their political systems in a manner similar to ours. And look how they have prospered as a result. What's hopeless is an attitude like yours who is willing to sit comfortably within the confines of his protected house, while the surrounding neighborhood goes to hell... And in this case, even after they've attacked the US "home"land, you're afraid to get out there and perform a bit of "urban renewal".. No Jacob.. they won't change unless provided an alternative. It may take decades, but every journey begins with the first step. And the problem will not go away by merely putting your head in the sand... My solution is a serious Energy Independence R&D project, to free us from the need for keeping 200,000 soldiers in the ME. That isn't cheap either. And it will be years before we're confident enough of the technology (such as fuelcells) to create the major infrastructural changes. And these technologies will STILL be beyond the affordability of the rest of the developing world. They still require cheap oil to fuel their economic growth. And we need them to economically grow in order to alleviate their demographic baby boom nightmare currently underway. It's not just about "oil", Jacob.. It's about reigniting global economic growth and helping some of the rest of the world to catch up. Hawk