SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Neocon who wrote (141885)7/29/2004 11:43:09 AM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
This will be a very long debate and I am afraid I don't have time for it now. Perhaps we will take it up at another time. There are often more than two ways of looking at events. Consider for example the case of Kuwait. You can say that we came to the help of a friendly state and kicked out Saddam. Or you can say that missed the opportunity to establish the minimum rights for women and any glimmer of democracy; we simply handed over the country to the same corrupt monarchy to do business as usual and they in turn awarded us a ton of reconstruction contracts and wrote "thank you" checks for the soldiers. Another example is Turkey. For years they have abused and murdered the Kurds and deprived them of the most basic rights. We never said anything until they refused to play ball during invasion of Iraq. Then suddenly you saw a lot of media articles about how bad the Kurdish abuse was in Turkey. But now that they are more obedient, not only you hear nothing of the rights of the Kurds, but we press for their membership in EU...anyway, to do this discussion justice I have to spend more time on it than I can right now, so let's just leave it as is...but I still leave you with this question: Why do we not hear/support independent reform movements in our client states? If we did, then may be not every local reformist would go after our opposition for help.