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: Maurice Winn who wrote (184667)4/6/2006 9:13:56 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Respond to of 281500
 
They topple like nine pins. I predicted a 110 minute war against Saddam and so it came to pass.

Sure.. they topple when opposed by overwhelming military power.

But apparently we've lost the will to exercise this option against them.

Which means, we'll likely have to do so, should they manage to actually increase their power (as Hitler did), or once again live in a M.A.D world (mutually assured destruction) with nations sitting on nuclear hair triggers.

Neither of which are preferable scenarios, in my opinion.

Iran would be a bit more tricky as they have religious fervour and that's the main basis of the power base of the current government which I understand was elected more or less.

But the problem is that until Iran actually invades someone, or we obtain irrefutable proof that they were behind a particular terrorist attack upon a nation, we don't have the legal authority to overthrow their government.

So this is a bit of a problem. Thus, we'll have to stand by and wait for a "casus belli" sufficient enough to outweigh the international outcry. And personally speaking, I don't want to invade Iran. I've known quite a few Iranians (both US citizens and students visting here) and I like them as a people. They are in a bad situation because they have a government that holds a heavy hand over their heads if they get out of line.

But because totalitarians are always useless in getting things done compared with Libertarian principles applied in large tribes [even if applied only haphazardly and to a very limited extent], it takes only a prod from the outside for them to fall over.

This is not the case at all. They are very good at creating massive military industries, large monolithic buildings, and focusing scientific research on innovative ways of killing large quantities of people.

During WWII, it was the state, including the US, that was able to divert the industrial and scientific industries of their countries to the purpose of waging war.

The difference is that for democratic societies, once the war is over, there is generally an outcry for massive demobilization and restoration of production of consumer goods.

But with a totalitarian regime, the state of war never really ends. For them, the only course is expansion, conquest, and the exploitation of natural resources, often via slave labor.

When they don't expand, they wallow economically, and eventually (as in the case of the USSR, 70 years), collapse.

Hitler HAD NO CHOICE but to choose war. The inability of the German economy to sustain the rate of government spending necessitated his decision to wage war and exploit the resources of other countries.

Unfortunately, during independence in the 20th century, the local yokels were conned by the local power grabbers to think that they were getting freedom from the yoke of the evil British. In fact, they got Idi Amin, Mugabe, and all sorts of horrors along with poverty and early death.

To an extent, this scenario resembles the history of Iraq, with Saddam becoming the Iraqi Idi Amin (minus the cannabalism).

It fascinates me to see rows and rows of humans like sardines in a can, [with comparable freedom and individuality], arrayed pointing to Mecca when instructed to bow like mindless iron filings in a magnetic field. To mix a couple of metaphors.

LOL!! Those are GREAT metaphors!! I hope you don't mind if I happen to borrow them.. ;0)

Anyone who disobeys will be guilty of apostasy and we know what happens to them. Weirdly, most or nearly all of the sardines/iron filings, are in favour of their treatment. That seems to be how Stockholm Syndrome works. They love their captors. Big Brother is wonderful and love is the right feeling. See "1984".

But lurking in the hostages' minds is anger and instinct for self-determination when escape is certain and freedom is experienced.

The religious bosses of a billion Moslems will NOT give up their power, cash flow, and girls, without an all-out war and total carnage if needs be.


Awesome observation!! I completely concur... Maybe the Stockholm Syndrome is a better analogy than my own belief that the Iraqis are like inmates from a brutal asylum who's keepers were arrested or fired.

Now that they have freedom, they don't know what to do with it.. But they know that they want it.

Nice post!!

Hawk