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: Maurice Winn who wrote (135053)	5/31/2004 5:58:27 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Great post Maurice, I always appreciate the thoughtful way you put things. I can also relate to your point regarding the lack of appreciation for the effort your country has given toward the growth of civilizing this world. However, I don't routinely see anyone on this thread or in press around the world, criticize New Zealand, the way they routinely denigrate and criticize America, so that's where I'm coming from. I've certainly never criticized New Zealand's efforts. I realize they are a small country, doing their small part in the promotion of democratic values. Yes, you're right, I think it would have been a tremendous mistake to not engage Hitler’s army and remove the threat of fascist Germany. There is one aspect of your post I would still take issue with though. Although we do often act for selfish reasons, there are many times we act for completely unselfish reasons. As an example, God forbid, if New Zealand were to suffer a horrible earthquake, which countries do you think would be the first to arrive with large-scale humanitarian assistance? Australia I am sure would be there quickly due to their geographic proximity, but America would be right behind them. With a little goggle effort, I am sure I could list a dozen incidents in which America responded with humanitarian assistance unselfishly. It goes to the fabric of our culture. This same generous spirit engenders us with the need to keep our forces far from home, protecting the peace in distant lands. And it is something universally under appreciated around the world. We help, not just because we're a wealthy nation, or because we're greedy, we help because we care about the suffering caused by war, and want to do as much as we can to keep it from happening again. Amd I am proud of my countries track record in this regard. There are many, like myself in America, who believe we have reached a time in mankinds development, where the suffering of millions at the behest of a dictator needs to end. We alone have the capacity to do something about it, and unfortunately, we alone seem to have the national will to take on this battle and hear the cries of the oppressed. Iraq, due to the ugliness of it's regime, and breeding ground for terrorists, was an opportunity to end tyranny and get the ball rolling in a region where stagnation and suffering is the norm. We don't have the national will to go into Africa and end the suffering there. We do what we can, we sacrifice what we can, but those sacrifices shouldn't be mitigated because we're unwilling to take on every ugly task this planet has to offer. Oil is certainly a major concern for us, as it effects so much of the growth and prosperity of the world, but if pacifism or isolationism ever takes a deep hold in America, I'm sure we could muster the national will to build enough nuclear plants, coal plants, or drill for oil of the continental shelf, to sustain our prosperity for a long time to come. Is that what the world wants? An isolationistic America, taking on tasks only the U.N. or future N.U.N wishes us to take on, under the assumption they are better able to determine the moral equations of war? An armistice with you is easy Maurice. It looks like I'll be visiting Cameroon, and Ghana soon, so I'll give you a first-hand report on cell-phone penetration there. :)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (135053)	5/31/2004 8:19:12 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

I'm paying my share. I've been backing the USA. I'd rather back a NUN, or both, but in the absence of a better entity, I'll back the USA. Money is the most sincere appreciation. Putting money where mouth is matters. We're in it together. I'm in favour of a civilizing empire and if it has to be an American empire instead of a NUN empire, I'll go with that. I certainly don't want a Chinese empire where individuals don't matter. Neither do I want Islamic Jihad reaching down from Indonesia. I appreciate what the people at QUALCOMM do and I appreciate USA soldiers getting rid of Saddam and sons and Osama and Omar, though Dostum should be on the short-list too. Islamic Jihad is serious. Thank you.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (135053)	5/31/2004 6:15:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As you say, if the USA had stayed out of the war, which became a bit tricky after Japan destroyed a lot of the USA fleet at Pearl Harbour, we'd have entered a dark era which might well have run for, as Hitler hoped, 1000 years. Hey... it could have happened very easily had the US lost both the battles of Coral Sea and Midway, which traditional military science says should have been the case.. Had we lost Coral Sea, which was in fact a tactical draw (or even a loss given the sinking of the of the Lady Lex and crippling of the Yorktown), New Guinea would have been captured and it's likely that Australia would have been required to sue for peace or surrender. Without Australia, there would have been no base for the US to stage and direct its island hopping campaign and Japan would have remained relatively secure. And likewise, as a friend of mine and I were discussing this morning over coffee, had Hitler 1.) not been convinced that Goering could case the BEF to surrender at Dunkirk and 2.) been provoked by Churchill into turning from bombing RAF airfields to bombing cities, the British army would have ceased to exists as a fighting force, and they would not have possessed an airforce to defend their coast (or navy) from a Nazi cross-channel invasion. Had Britain fallen, Hitler would have been essentially free to direct his full military power against Russia, as well as free up sufficient forces to conquer N. Africa and the mid-east oil fields. We certainly would not have been able to stage an invasion of Europe, ala D-Day.. And Spain and Turkey would likely have come into the war on the side of Germany, with Turkey likely to have been promised the restoration of its former Mid-East empire. Oh yeah, unlike many people who seem to think WWII was an inevitable win, it was quite the contrary. It was a desperate struggle, with the tide of the war actually being more a matter of incredible luck and miscalculations on the part of Hitler and Tojo. Hawk