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.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9116)	5/19/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

I'm curious about the distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes. No you're not, you are looking for debating points... The United States supported plenty of regimes that survived or have become more democratic. Would it have helped to have let them become part of the Soviet bloc? I used to almost laugh at the absurdity of it all A person of such superior attainments should have run for higher office, or entered the State Department. Think of all of those wasted decades when it was all so obvious! How could you have left them in the dark?... It is an axiom of foreign policy that one deal with the regime in place. In a situation where that regime is under siege, one is left with the decision to offer aid or let it fall. Since the successor regimes would have been overtly anti- American and, in many instances, allied with our greatest rival, the choice was rarely hard. You talk as if we created the regimes, or as if we eliminated the democratic option from the menu... People don't like those things, even - believe it or not - brown people. You are fortunate to have many miles between us after that. Shall I send you pictures of my niece and nephew? My sister- in- law is African- American. My brother, her husband, is as conservative as I. this has nothing to do with race...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9116)	5/19/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: robnhood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

I can't believe you said all that and somehow see it from a viewpoint that we were duped into all of those situations... That is ridiculous...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9116)	5/20/1999 9:09:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

The fastest way to bring the Moslem Brotherhood to the critical mass needed for a serious run at power would be to violently suppress dissent, outlaw opposition parties, and install a dictator whose strings were obviously pulled from abroad. People don't like those things, even - believe it or not - brown people. Kinda funny you bring up the MB(or Ihkwan). They were the focus of a political risk project that I researched for a professor of mine who used to be a muckety-muck at the State Dept I&R dept back in the '60s. The Ihkwan were where current Islamic fundamentalism began in the Mid-East, circa 1922. But they were Sunni, not Shi'ite. I made a prediction that Egypt would face an Iran-like political challenge in the early '90s due to the tremendous pressures that were being exerted on the Mubarak regime by the grass-roots political efforts being pushed by the Brotherhood and their growing presence in the Egytian parliament, as well as the tremendous economic and demographic pressures being placed on the country. Mubarak's capacity to undermine their support while maintaining Egypt on a secular path has been amazing to say the least and his leadership will one day be worthy of historical note. The situation could certainly turn against him in the future, but thus far he has been able to maintain a semblance of peace in a society whose pressures were close to reaching a boiling point. As for US support of dictators, I've stated before that these forms of Caudillo gov'ts rely upon the presence of a single leader and his/her ability to maintain support among a society's parochial interests and security apparatus. When this leader dies or is overthrown, there is a power vacuum that can result in any number of different parties coming to power. A totalitarian system is different in that their is a political machine in place and the only power struggle comes from within that party apparatus. A totalitarian regime represses any opposition or interests outside of its political and economic agenda of state control of resources and people. So while dictators come and go on a regular basis (and somehow life goes on), a totalitarian regime is a systemic ideologically based politically organism, which when it "dies", leaves a far greater vacuum of political control. Regards, Ron