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 (122035)	12/24/2003 2:40:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

He doesn't seem to understand the significance on a nation when 1/2 of its population is under 18. It would be interesting to study countries during such population booms, which usually means during their first generation of prosperity and modern medicine, when they keep having as many kids as they can, just like they always did, but now they all live instead of 2/3s of them dying young. Europe's birthrate was like that in the 19th century, and it created tremendous dislocations as well as driving colonialism and all forms of emigration. But at least Europe had economic growth the support the birthrate. Iran and the Arab countries do not. I wonder how Kenya's doing? They have an explosive birthrate too. I haven't heard much about their economy lately.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122035)	12/24/2003 5:46:26 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Evidence please? We haven't had a major terrorist attack against the US mainland, or base (outside of Iraq), since 9/11. ... Where? In Iraq? It isn't happening over here is it?" There were no major terrorist attacks against the US between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, so your logic (to the extent that it has any validity at all), also shows that the war with Iraq did not do anything to stop Al Qaeda from attacking the US mainland. Re: "What would support Al-Qaeda even more would be to preserve the status quo of economic despair in the region." Yes. And now we've created a region of 25 million people whose economy is so messed up that they have to import gasoline from Jordan. A lot of those Iraqis freezing in the dark will be the future supporters of Al Qaeda. Re: "And that's what would have happened if Saddam remained in power and posed even a tacit threat against his neighbors." Your point was about "economic despair". But the Iraqis, to the extent that they miss Saddam, miss him because of the simple fact that their economy was stronger when Saddam ruled. Perhaps you should change your argument from "economic despair" to some other kind of despair. Re: "We've forced them to concentrate on defending THEIR OWN TURF, rather than coming after ours." Until after our invasion, Iraq was not the turf of Al Qaeda. Saddam was deeply hated by Al Qaeda. Now the lawlessness of Iraq allows Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in a manner similar to how the lawlessness of Afghanistan, after the Russians left, allowed the Taliban to take over there. Violent times make humans wish for peace, and peace frequently appears to be easiest to attain in the form of a strong leader. And if that leader is supposedly religious, then that calms fears that he will run the country only for his own good (like Saddam did). Re: "Besides, you have little evidence as to how many car/truck bombings have been Al-Qaeda versus Baathist fanatics." It's commonly believed that it was Al Qaeda that ran the UN out of Iraq. But if you want to blame it on Baathists or some other type of terrorists, I welcome you to do that. In that case, I say that Bush's war has multiplied the number of terrorist groups that are blowing up our citizens and our allies. By the way, let me remind you of what you said about the UN right after that bombing. If you recall, I said that the UN was going to leave Iraq. In response, this is what you posted: Hawkmoon, August 19, 2003 Personally, I think today's events [bombing of the UN headquarters] will force Annan and other UNSC members to get off their @sses and provide Bush the kind of international support that is required to stem the ongoing insurgency. #reply-19224118 Bilow, in reply You will be disappointed. More likely the UN and various other neutral aid providers will pull out as they are increasingly targeted. #reply-19225431 Hawkmoon, in reply I may be wrong, but I think the UN will step up support of the US, rather than continuing to advance their previous agenda of taking over complete control of the Iraqi situation. But I don't see Annan showing his "backside" in Iraq after such a major attack. It would suggest that no future UN "nation building" operation could possibly succeed. #reply-19225554 Bilow, in reply After months of hearing you bitch about how the UN was soft on Iraq, now I have to listen to you claim that the UN is suddenly going to get backbone??? You're in hope mode. The situation is hopeless. #reply-19227651 You're still in hope mode, and the situation is still hopeless. What would you have said back in August to someone who told you that the insurgency would not only still be strong in November and December, but that November would be the worst month for the CPA so far? That's right you would have called them an idiot. Re: "Temporarily." The situation has gotten so bad that you refuse to make any speculation as to when it will get better. Of course our quagmire is "temporary". Eventually we'll give up and leave. Vietnam was temporary too. And after Vietnam, the world's opinion of the US eventually did improve. Re: "The US is unpopular because we're "pssing" in everyone's pools, especially with regard to the French and Russians. We have the "goods" on them now, since Saddam has been captured alive (and they don't know what he is telling us)." The comment on pissing in everyone's pools is an all too apt description of the failure of US diplomacy and foreign policy. And your comment on what Saddam is "telling us" is another great example of your wishful thinking. Like the WMDs so many fervently believed in, like the welcoming crowds, like the allies begging to join the fight, like the returning American heroes, this is just another example of hope. The simple fact is that there is nothing for Saddam to tell us. We've already been talking to his employees for six months, and it is always the employees who (a) know the details, and (b) talk. Re: "Globalization is pretty much an unstoppable force Bilow.*" Yes. I've stated this over and over. Globalization will eventually win whether we fight or not. In fact, our fighting has the effect of postponing the inevitable victory. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (122035)	12/25/2003 8:50:41 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: Globalization is pretty much an unstoppable force Bilow.. It's not being externally driven by US imperialism. Globalization has been going on for some 100,000 years. I agree, it's unstoppable. And for the same reason, it's not driven by US imperialism. I agree with that as well. Re: but internally by populations who are no longer willing to accept corrupt totalitarian rule. You lost me there. When the Europeans discovered the Americas and stole the gold and silver from the indigenous people, that was globalization. The Silk road was globalization is a more benign form. The movement and peoples and trade [or product] is globalization. Here's a definiton from a Canadian source, but you'll find similar definitions elsewhere. canadianeconomy.gc.ca The term “globalization” describes the increased mobility of goods, services, labour, technology and capital throughout the world. Although globalization is not a new development, its pace has increased with the advent of new technologies, especially in the area of telecommunications. It's the means of globalization that are at real issue. The US is quite pleased that it has the highest per capita income in the world. On the other hand, we're not pleased that other countries that have lower per capita income can produce product and services at a lower price than the US. [duh]. So what do we do? We impose tariffs, subsidize various industries, e.g., steel and farm products so the US producers have an economic advantage over countries that have lower costs of production. Europe does this pretty well also. We publicly don't put it that way. What we say instead is: "We want a level playing field.", and/or "We want free trade." And we try to achieve it, with "balance of trade" accounting. It's hard to be "popular" in a third world cotton producing country that has a cost of production 1/3 the cost of US producers, yet can't sell cotton because the US government subsidizes the cotton industry by $4B/year. We call that policy "a level playing field". Third world countries that produce cotton call it something different. You appear to call it "progressive politico-economic policies". Some call it "US economic imperialism". If I had to pick between the two...I think it's closer to the later than the former. Then you can get into the more esoteric topic of American values. What American values are we demonstrating with our globalization policies? jttmab