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 (9137)	5/19/1999 8:49:00 PM
From: robnhood	Respond to of 17770

Great post Steven,, great work

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9137)	5/19/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 17770

I agree that this has nothing to do with race. It has a great deal to do with nationality.>>> That is the concept that is very difficult for Americans (White and Black) alike to grasp....I have got to know many Africans students in my younger years in Soviet Union ...those guys not only had nothing to do with African-Americans, (indeed they could not possibly understand them) but were much more close to European French.... In fact modern White-Black relations in this country are far more close to Serb-Croatian before war...than old terrible KKK times...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9137)	5/20/1999 5:00:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

Steven, you are probably right that such a situation would make me want to shoot someone. However, there is a difference between such outrage and an understanding of geopolitical reality. Can you blame those who had been through World War II for being determined not too make the same mistakes that had caused so much generalized bloodshed, and such peril to the world? By 1948, it was clear that the emerging problem was the Soviet Union, which had reneged on promises concerning its zone of influence, and suspended liberties in Central and Eastern Europe. Recall that during the War we had been willing to support the Soviet regime, and that when Churchill was questioned about this he responded that if the Hitler invaded Hell he would at least make a comment favorable to the Devil in the House of Commons. The new threat was Stalin, and a state such as Iran was on the front line. In the prevailing situation, supporting the Shah was like the choice of supporting Stalin earlier. You can draw the rest out for yourself.... The main effect of training foreign security services was to professionalize them and make them less likely to use expedients like torture. However, so many charges have been thrown around about that that it may be futile to argue about when I am not prepared with an array of documentation, so I will decline to try to prove it... I am sure that we made mistakes, for example in Guatemala, and that we should be big enough to admit them. That has no bearing on the general proposition that one deals with existing regimes, even if one has to hold one's nose, and tries to assess the options "on the ground".... Democracy is partly dependent upon having a social order that will support it. The problem in the Third World is not with the color of the skin, but the stage of social development, which is sometimes not conducive to democratic institutions. You are quite right about wallowing in a "feudal and colonial sink", and I believe that it is possible to accelerate the process of democratization. But look at what has happened in Haiti, for example. Our "nation building" is a failure, because the society is too primitive to thrive under democratic institutions, and merely devolves into warring factions. You must know, in the Phillippines, how fragile democracy is. Whether pushing a country towards democracy will enhance its viability, or cause it to fall apart, is a judgment call, and we must allow some leeway for those who had to make it...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (9137)	5/20/1999 10:13:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17770

Geez Steve, If people were to adopt your perspective, they'd be led to believe that the US created the "art of torture" and that all of these "innocents" were coming here to receive their education. The reality is that torture against one's fellow man has been around since our earliest days on this planet. Participants in the "school of the Americas" program were well versed in coersive interrogative techniques well before they were sent on their "working vacation" here to the US, where they could don the cloak of US trained professional officers. As for the authoritarian/totalitarian debate, one point I thought about in clarifying the issue is that under a dictatorship there exist individual owners of property. These include businessmen, bankers, and property owners. A dictator can only "control" indirectly the actions of these people through coersive means or winning their loyalty through doling out political and economic favors. With a totalitarian regime one lives, works, travels, or exercises political expression only through the political apparatus. It is the political machine that owns all means of production and finance, not individuals. It is a system where all national resources are mustered to preserve that political machine and to preserve the rights of the priviledged few who are in control. Dictators exist solely because they are able to control the loyalties of the national populace and business sector, voluntarily or coercively. With totalitarians, the party decides what you can and can do, who you are, where you work, and how high you will rise to power in the party, since they claim sole ownership of the means of production and finance, and total control over the political franchise. Regards, Ron