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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Green Oasis Environmental, Inc. (GRNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9604)	6/22/1998 2:05:00 PM
From: Charles A. King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13091

Ron, very interesting reading indeed. One thing missing that I was looking for was the attitude of the Central Asian governments themselves to the possibility of Russian troops along their borders with Iran. The dictator of Belarus, who recently locked the gates to their diplomatic enclave, is openly seeking reunion with Russia to recreate the old Soviet empire. Do the moderate Iranians foresee the emergence of a new Soviet Union along their border? What surprises me is the financial condition of Saudi Arabia. Their oil costs should be very low along with a relatively small population. It sounds to me like a long history of financial mismanagement has gotten them into a bind. The article refers to money for the various factions to spread around. One of those places Saudi money has gone is support for the Palestinians. Another concern is pressure from religious fundamentalists. If Saddam is replaced with a moderate, sane, competent leader and if Saudi Arabia chooses to ally itself with Iran instead of us, and if oil prices remain low as more regions begin exporting, why should the American taxpayer maintain a large force in the Gulf? All we need to do is to make an occasional goodwill call. One reason given for not completing the job of invading Iraq in 1991 was that the US didn't want Iraq to be dismembered into Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite countries. They wanted an intact Iraq as a buffer against Syria and Iran. So I am a little surprised by the reference to the US "intrigued by the idea of dismembering Iraq". Shows that American policies are subject to twists and turns as are those of the Middle East. It is the interest of the USA to maintain low oil prices, being a large net consumer rather than producer of oil. Therefore, it is in the USA's interest to open up the Central Asian fields to exploitation, contrary to possible thinking of some in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iran would like pipelines from Central Asia to traverse Iran, but that would leave them at the mercy and whim of Iran which would not be wise for obvious reasons. Russia would like pipelines to go through Russia and have the oil be taken by tanker though the Bosporus and Dardenelles. Turkey opposes that because it would load the heavily traveled Straits with more shipping that, in the event of an accident, would load its waters with crude. Russia has been behind the intransigence of Saddam and the Serbs for reasons of tradition if nothing else, and is not an ally we can trust. Therefore it seems to me that Turkey is our own best bet to back in the events foreseen by your article. Turkey has made a defense pact with Israel to the irritation of some of its neighbors. Both Turkey and Israel need the USA and Turkey is becoming more important to us. Therefore we will support Turkey's policy of pipelines from Central Asia. I was a little glad to see Iran beat us playing soccer. It seems clear young people of Iran do not harbor hatred of the USA. Back in the eighties, I worked with a fine young engineer from Iran who was a big support to me. Charles

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9604)	6/23/1998 1:28:00 AM
From: Norman H. Hostetler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13091

Hey, Ron, from what Republican spin doctor did you nab this piece of anti-Albright/Clinton "analysis"? I do love the irony of the slick Iranian foreign policy jerking the stupid American President/State Department around by the nose for the apparent purpose of creating more conflicts among political factions and subsequent destabilization in Iran. Excuse me? But of course if we start out with the intent of making Democratic foreign policy look bad, we have to twist everything to that purpose, don't we? Nothing here about the frustration of the Iranian educated elite with the short-sighted fundamentalists trying to impose through tyranny a static system unresponsive to changing conditions, for example, and the intent of American foreign policy to foster a more open, democratic system. Not much here about the virtues of encouraging a more outward-looking Iran, more interested in negotiated relationships than terrorist subversion. From the perspective of Iranian moderates, raprochement and cooperation with the US makes a lot more sense for contributing to the economic development of Iran than the current insistence of the censors on fostering ignorance of the external world (this was the only country in the world to show the World Cup on a 10-second delay basis so censors could cut crowd shots and other things they didn't want the populace to see), including cutting off a lot of access to contemporary technical knowledge. Iran is one of the largest, most populous nations in the area, and blessed with substantial mineral wealth. It ought to be a major regional player, with or without US blessing. American interests will also be better served by normalizing of diplomatic relations, as experience has shown time and again. By the way, I saw in today's news that the fundamentalist controlled Parliament fired the Minister of Internal Affairs, who was promptly named a Deputy President responsible for internal policy by Khatami, who also appointed the fired minister's righthand man as the interim Minister. More cultural politics: Iraq, as a country, is a creation of the Euro-American "Four Powers" after WWI. In dividing up the former Ottoman Empire, the primary aim was to keep the major known locations of oil and the major Arab population areas separate, so that the oil could be controlled for European benefit, rather than for the benefit of the people living in the area. Hence, Kuwait (under the Ottomans, always an administrative part of the southern Iraqi area) and Saudi Arabia on the one hand and Syria and Iraq on the other (they were essentially right about Syria, but Iraq proved to have more oil than they supposed at the time). Political "self-determination" turned out to mean only for Europeans--everywhere else, colonialism predominated and local desires were ignored. At the one time in history when it would have been relatively easy to create a Kurdistan, the powers arbitrarily sliced up those areas among Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. This was a hell of a way to treat allied ethnic rebels against the Ottoman Empire, which, along with the subsequent states, slaughtered over 500,000 Kurds during this period. BUT--there was no oil in the area to peak Western interests (contrast the Saudi family, who were rewarded for their leadership of much smaller guerilla revolts, with the country named after them, with the provisio of Euro-American rights to exploit the oil in the country). The Kurds may have the last "laugh," since a Turkish oil pipeline probably goes through their areas. After WWII, European imperial power and dominance in the area shifted toward America, especially as the latter became an oil importer. A lot of cultural baggage and local hostility comes with that role, independent of the whole Israeli issue. When I was in Indonesia last month, I had frequent occasion to discuss current affairs--a hot topic, as you may suppose--with many well-educated (advanced degrees from US and English universities) Indonesians. It was a given for them, so obvious as to be not worth discussing, that the IMF and World Bank were the primary tools of an American imperialism that tries to dictate internal conditions in weaker countries for the obvious benefit of American economic interests. They made it clear that this is a much more humane form of imperialism than that that the Dutch and Japanese imposed by military force. But it's still imperialism, controlling central institutions in other countries, and with values informed by American self-interests and desires. Is it any wonder that people in these countries are quick to take offense at further imperialist activities, like having the FBI control a criminal investigation? How would Americans act if Mexico and Columbia sent troops to American cities to break up the drug rings that organize and finance the production and sale of illicit drugs in those countries? I'd like to admire similarly the attempt in the article to revive the "Red Peril." Doubtless the rightwing has been frustrated by the absence lately of a fear-inspiring bogeyman for them to wave around in hopes of increasing their political power. It's amazing how any attempt by a country to assert an independent self-interest winds up as appearing "anti-American" in this context. But that's what too much immersion in rightwing imperialist tripe will do to skew one's sense of perspective. And I've been wading in this slough long enough. =+=+=Norm