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: Sun Tzu who wrote (117918)	10/28/2003 1:54:47 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am not sure what the question has to do with my point. Everyone looks for allies, therefore one can usually point to some hypothetical "foreign support". As it happens, China was more repressive after its break with the Soviet Union, and before its detente with the United States, particularly during the Cultural Revolution. Myanmar is a fairly isolated, highly repressive regime. But there are plenty of regimes that fall short of Stalinesque repression that are pretty bad. The Soviet Union itself was repressive for about 75 years, it was not confined to the Stalin period. Syria has been repressive since independence, just a bit short of a hundred years ago, it is just that it was at its worst after the ascension of Assad. Iran has been repressive throughout most of its modern history, it is just the repressors who change places. Most African countries are repressive, although some are better than others. Most of them are repressive without sponsorship. Instead, it is a matter of not finding them so offensive as to go to war to overthrow them, instead dealing with them as quasi- legitimate regimes, and using persuasion rather than force to encourage democratization.......