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: Hawkmoon who wrote (113938)	9/5/2003 12:44:25 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<6. "Let a thousand flowers bloom".....Shower Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin with love.....> After Pearl Harbor, the only solutions involved killing millions of people. Which my Blueprint would allow (Strict Reciprocity and Self-Defense). But, as with most problems, prevention is the best cure. There were a number of plausible choices, in the years before Pearl Harbor, that might (just might) have prevented WW2: 1. If the U.S. had not fought in WW1, it is likely Germany would have won, or perhaps there might have been a negotiated settlement (serious negotiations were done in 1917, but failed). WW2 happened because of the unfinished business of WW1. 2. If the U.S. had insisted, as a condition of our entry into WW1, that the war goals would be Wilson's "peace without victors", instead of the punitive humiliating treaty that was imposed on Germany, WW2 might not have happened. 3. If the U.S. had not responded to the Depression, with a beggar-thy-neighbor tariff war, the Depression might have been over, before Hitler was elected. The Nazi party was a tiny nuisance, no more, until the global Depression caused massive suffering. 4. If French, American, and British troops had done Regime Change in Germany, when Hitler first violated treaties, it could have been done for 1/100th the actual cost. 5. If the U.S., Britain, France, and the USSR, in 1938, had jointly guaranteed the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia and Poland, Hitler might not have started his war. Stalin tried to arrange this, and only did his deal with Hitler, when he became convinced the West wouldn't fight. In these negotiations, the Poles refused to allow Soviet troops onto their soil, even if Germany attacked. This stupidity, vacillation, division, and cowardice greatly encouraged Hitler. He thought England and America would never fight for Poland. 6. If the U.S. had not orchestrated an oil embargo against Japan, they wouldn't have attacked us. Similarly, in the years before 9/11, there were RoadsNotTaken.....preventive cures..... If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (113938)	9/5/2003 1:11:57 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<To do what you're advocating, we'd have to be PERMITTED by the tyranny in charge, to distribute those resources properly.> Hamas isn't "permitted" by Israel, to organize in Gaza, yet they manage. Hezbollah wasn't exactly welcomed, in Lebanon. The Viet Minh weren't "permitted" by the French. Mao was welcomed with repeated scorched-earth campaigns, by the Koumintang and Japanese, wherever he tried to set up "liberated zones". If we are going to defeat organizations like this, we have to recognize and learn ourselves, the successful techniques they use. If we ever set out to counter the Wahabi propaganda, with a serious and comprehensive counter-message, the Saudis would fight us with everything they have. Including another oil embargo. Which is why Energy Independence is crucial, to change the balance of power, and allow us to pursue a HeartsAndMinds campaign against them. Our passivity in the face of the Saudi's permanent virulent attack on the Enlightenment ideals, is due to our economic dependance. <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.> Virtually none of American "foreign aid" helps poor people in poor countries. It isn't intended to. Its purpose, is to bribe governments and elites in those nations, to tie them to us, and for domestic political reasons. Why are Israel and Egypt the biggest recipients of our "aid"? Is it because Israelis and Egyptians are the most needy people we could find on the planet? Of course not.