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 (131786)	5/6/2004 2:47:43 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I await your alternative, AND VIABLE, solutions to the problem with bated breath.. You won't like the slowness of my solution. It involves taking a couple of body shots and letting the opponent wear down so that we can land that shot to his jaw. It involves having the patience to wait and lose a couple of battles in order to win the war. It's about "he who laughs last, laughs loudest." We should let the Iraqis know that we are NOT committed to "assuring a democratic Iraq." We should tell them that THEY must choose the nature of their government and that we will stay until a given date and then they must provide their own security and find their own path. In other words we should tell them what we tell our children when they leave home; "you must create a life of your own." This is not only the right course, it's the only workable course. If you start with the assumption, as I do, that sovereign people have the right to conduct their own affairs as long as they don't imminently threaten our security, then our role in "nation building" is limited to rebuilding those nations that we had to "break" because of necessary wars. Afghanistan is one such nation, Iraq wasn't. There are many social experiments that were dangerous to peace and civilization. The Soviet Union was a dire threat to world peace at one time. We contained that threat through alliances, a strong military and diplomacy. In the end it showed the weakness of that system of governance and showed the relative superiority of our economic and political system. Many of the satellite countries are now in NATO and Russia is, in many respects, a world ally of the U.S. Iran is a good example. In Iran we've been dealing with a relatively radical Islamic militancy that is, in effect, in control of the country. It seems, however, that the Iranian people have learned, and are learning, that the theory of life under that theocracy are not the panacea that some would have believed. The young people seem to have been headed a lot farther in our direction than their mothers and fathers were. Time and experience taught them that lesson, not our military. Sure, our military might can generate fear. Fear induces submission but not admiration or emulation. If the greatest military power in the world wants to lead the world to a greater level of democracy and civilization it must have the trust and respect of the world. Trust and respect are given to those that are just and who lead by setting an example of not only firmness, but patience, wisdom, tolerance for other cultures and respect for the rights of others. When injured we should strike against those that inflicted the injury. When threatened we should watch, warn and then act only when self-defense requires that we act. We should be acutely aware of world reaction, not only the reactions of the leaders of the world but also of the peoples of the world, not because we want to be liked, but because we should understand that it is essential that all peoples know that the United states is humble; not arrogant, listening; not deaf, and responsive to differences in culture; not dismissive. In the middle east I would let the radicals fight it out with the moderates without DIRECTLY intervening. I would intervene indirectly to support those factions that were more moderate and were willing to shoulder the burden of fighting for their own futures. In those instances where radicals won through, I'd warn of the consequences of ANY hostile action, or support for hostile action, against the U.S. or our citizens. I'd work diplomatically and economically to contain those groups and I'd let their citizens learn through the long and painful process of real world experience whether those radicals could lead them to a better physical or spiritual existence. When they'd learned I'd step in and help those who were looking for a better way. The fact is that if we butted out they'd have little reason to "hate freedom" over here. If there were no oil reserves in that region of the world we'd have primarily ignored it for the last 5 decades. With respect to their oil, oil is a fungible commodity. If they want oil revenues they will sell oil. If they sell oil it will enter the world market. If someone else buys it then they won't be competing with us for someone else's oil. The problem with oil prices results from the pricing power of the Gulf states. Our only way to escape from that is to become less dependant upon cheap, light, sweet crude mideastern oil. That's a long term conservation, alternative energy and changing lifestyles problem that will have to be addressed soon since the world's oil reserves are topping out at about the same time that the world's oil demands are escalating. As I've stated, we will likely take some body blows. We may have another 9/11 type of incident, or even something more damaging. We may face decades of problems. We will, however, face those risks if we continue upon the "beat them into submission" course we're now following. The difference is that one path leads to respect and emulation while the other creates a pressure cooker of fear and resentment that will destroy any possibility for our nation to keep the high moral ground and to create a better, more reasoned, more civilized world. I told you that you wouldn't like my path to the future of the middle east.