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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (117685)	10/25/2003 9:10:19 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

people have very very different notions of what "being left alone" means. Can't say I agree with you. I've traveled quite extensively and am yet to run into anyone from anywhere with I diverged greatly as to what being left alone means. As it happens, we cannot "leave Muslims alone", no matter what policies we now pursue, because their idea of being left alone would require a complete revolution in current geo-political realities. Correct me if I am wrong, but by "Muslims" I assume you mean Arabs. You should note that Arabs are not the majority of Muslims and have no greater hold on Islam than Italians have on Christianity. I think you are being presumptuous as to what it is that they want. On either extremes some Arabs (particularly in Saudi) want a return to some 1400 years ago, while others want a total western style society. Neither of these are things we'd allow and neither of them mass support in their public. But for the most parts they want to be free to decide how to live their lives. The issue of globalization is an important one which can (but does not have to) interfere with this desire to live life as one pleases. Before you condemn the Muslims for being anti-modernization (or anti-globalization) which by no means is clear to me to be the want of the majority, you should note that globalization has strong opponents in the West as well. In the coming years, the combination of baby boomer retirement and shipment of jobs to Asia (a.k.a outsourcing) will wreck havocs here. It will be interesting to see how pro-globalization will the American public be then. Regardless, I see no reason why a working compromise cannot be made. Even if not, hypothetically speaking, I don't see why you think globalization cannot be stopped by choice. If for some reason Canadians decide they do not want to import Ford motor parts and sell us soft lumber, then do you think we should install a puppet regime there? They won't of course make such a choice because they believe they are being treated fairly. But the choice should always remain with them. Israel exists. Unless we agree to destroy it for them, they will not consider themselves "left alone". Firstly, we do not need to destroy Israel for them. Without our support Israel would not have lasted this long. It is questionable if Israel can stand on its own now if we were to cut off our support of it. So in a very real sense, we are involved in conflict with the Palestinians. Now I do support Israel's right to exist. What I do not support is the idea that Israel should feel so supremely secure to do whatever it wants to do because there is no way we'd let it fail. The logic of such commitment escapes me...but that is another story. they are not being "left alone" due to their geopolitical weakness and utter dysfunction You make it sound as if their "dysfunction" is entirely of their own making and the greater powers (this includes Russians, the French, the British, etc) had no parts in it. Such an assessment is not fair any sense of the word. That being the case, there are two things we can do (1) we can try to fix up our past mistakes, or (2) we can say "sorry, the past is past; we blame using you as a pawn on the pressures from our adversaries. But now you are free to go". History speaks strongly against the first route, even when we do have good intentions. The second choice boils down to respecting other countries sovereignty and not interfering in their internal politics not matter how bad of a leader they choose. Sooner or later, they will work it out and join the modern world. BTW, about the "US controls Afghanistan" part...back before we invaded Iraq, there was a lot of talk about how terrible the Taliban are and how Afghanistan will be a great country once we take over. Have you checked on our progress there over the past two years? It may prove illuminating. As to Russians in Chechnya, the Chinese in Tibet, and so on, may they all burn in a hell of their own making. But how is that related to us? I think we should be more concerned with solving the problems of US of A than what the Russians are doing in Chechnya, don't you think? The US is not likely to change any of these ways "we're not leaving them alone;" There is only two changes that we need to make: first and most importantly, we need to neither support nor destroy any socio-political change which is internal to other countries. Secondly, we need to be more even handed in our support of Israel. But ultimately, I agree with you that such changes "require a complete revolution in current geo-political realities" and we are unlikely to make it happen. So we will continue to suffer the consequences of our actions, just like everyone else. When we finally get to change, I hope it will not be because Hamas or some other organization got its hands on nukes. ST

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (117685)	10/26/2003 1:34:23 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<people have very very different notions of what "being left alone" means> Being Left Alone means (at the very very least) everybody keeps their soldiers, rockets, bombs, assassination teams, and sub-launched nuke-tipped cruise missiles off of everybody else's soil. This is the obvious and universally-agreed "notion" of national sovereignty and self-determination, which Israel and the U.S. violate routinely. You complain about Israel's isolation, you complain when the leaders of 57 nations give Mahathir a standing ovation, yet you champion the policies that create that isolation.