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: cnyndwllr who wrote (135754)	6/5/2004 5:00:33 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<I don't think that the USA is weaker than it has been. I'd say it's at all time strength.> Military strength stems from the foundations of society overall and the intention to develop military abilities. The USA has got more GDP than ever, by a long way. The technology foundations are greater, by a long way, than ever. The population is bigger than ever. The military technologies are greater than ever. The proportion of GDP going on military activities is tiny compared with what is spent when military action is seriously required. When Ronald Reagan, now deceased, was boosting the military, he had far less to back it up than is available now. Sure, the current troops are under some pressure. That's what troops are for - to be ready for the time when they have to get very, very serious. On the good name of democracy, I don't think the opinion of the USA as the standard bearer for the world was as high as Americans think. Most people around the world weren't under too many illusions about the USA and what it gets up to. The prisoner abuse in Iraq wasn't anything particularly different from business as usual. Iraqis and others in the middle east aren't babies who can't think. They haven't got a bad idea of democracy because of the recent actions of the USA in Iraq. They knew that's about how things are with the USA. They've seen the USA supporting Israel for decades and they have opinions about that democracy. On how well thing are going, compared with how well they should be going, I'm always dissatisfied, but how things are going is better than I expected of King George II and his band of merry men. < Even overlooking the obvious fact that we had no reason to retaliate barbarically against a "billion Moslems" because of the terrorist acts of a few that call themselves Muslim, your dismissal of those who've died horrible, unnecessary and tragic deaths as being "only in the 10s of thousands," indicates an "us and them" attitude.> I think it is an Us and Them matter. The rules of Islam are world domination and Islamic Jihad, dhimmitude and Allah as the only supernatural spook allowed. When push comes to shove, the USA is willing to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, which is why they have 20 megaton bombs suitable to remove Moscow from the map. They've already done just that at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Osama contrives to get nuclear explosions going in downtown USA, I would not be surprised to see more of an us vs them approach. Self-defence is a powerful motivator and when seriously threatened, which many in the USA think they are and I agree with them [if Islamic Jihad can get a nuke downtown, they will], the sacrifice of LOTS of innocent civilians in the Them village won't seem so much of a worry. "Only in the 10s of thousands" isn't dismissing those deaths, it's realizing that things could have been a LOT worse. Sure, turning the other cheek and accepting the Twin Towers destruction and attack on Washington was an option, but it was quite a serious attack and the USA understandably decided to do something about it, namely hunt down those responsible. Some of those 10s of thousands were self-inflicted, such as Tillman's death. Blunders are common and in war are fatal, to innocent people too. When you think of 20 million Russians being killed in the conflict with Hitler's gang, 10s of thousands is "only". Of the USA's population, 1000 dead soldiers is "only" 1:280,000. When things are as serious as might be the case [if nukes were to be let off in LA and NY and Washington DC], that is not many. Mqurice

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (135754)	6/6/2004 11:11:44 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<"it's at its all time strength?">>> I would say we are at the height of military strength both in relative and absolute terms. In relative terms, there is no contest. There is no one else close. Same thing could be said in absolute terms (measurable air, sea, and land fire power capabilities). What you see in Iraq is more like a demonstration of our military capabilities. We are doing it without any calls for sacrifice or extraordinary expenditures. The Bush administration is calling this action in Iraq a war - only in rhetoric. It has not explained to us fully what we are fighting for, what we must do to win the war, how much it is going to cost us in this war, and what sacrifices need to be made. It has not made the case to put us into a war footing. This war (however it is defined) is fought sub rosa. It does not have any real legitimacy. By this,I am not making any judgements on actions taken. The results can still come out okay. <<< "the vision of demcracy is badly tainted." >>> WRT democracy, the genie is out of the bag. Governments have to answer to the people. You just can't assume power and get away with it. As soon as people learn to read and write and can get on the Internet for communications and information, the question will always be "how can government do this without the permission of the people"? I don't see where we have to sell democracy. All we have to do is demonstrate how it works. When we act badly, tyrants around the world can prolong their tenure by point to us and our follies. But, this has nothing to do with democracy. The idea that government has to be accountable to it's people is not going away. It is only a matter of time when the last of the dictators (non legitimate rulers) will have their powers taken away from them. I don't give any of them more than 50 years. One hundred years tops.