--- Marlon Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect that the majority shares my feelings, as I have not heard any outcry on this forum to halt the genocide in Sudan. It has been said that silence is consent and I guess you are as much guilty of it as I am. > Mario responds: I have mentioned this atrocity several times and disagree that acceptance of obvious evil out of personal short-term convenience is good for anything in the longer run. The Clinton non-responses to al Qaeda throughout the 90's is an example, where all that happened was that they were emboldened to launch escalating attacks culminating with 9/11. It could just as easily have been LA.
Silence on this forum being "consent" to the atrocities in Sudan is an assumption that may not be valid. The vast majority of Goanetters do not participate in the active dialog, which may suggest inertia rather than any consent with anything. Besides, most of the vocal Goanetters live in countries that are incapable of doing anything about Sudan or any other international trouble spot, and are mostly reduced to wringing their hands and impotent acceptance of every status quo. > Marlon continues: I also need not remind you that many in this > and in previous US adminstrations had no issues > working with Saddam and a variety of other regimes. > If it is good for business, it is good - period. > Mario's perspective: For people with short memories, the US "worked with Saddam" when he was a geopolitical balance weight against an even more rampant and dangerous Iran after the Shah was deposed, and before he went off the reservation and invaded Kuwait and began threatening Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening the free flow of oil on which the global economy depends. Marlon is right that if it is good for business it is generally good for the most people most of the time. It is the "period" I disagree with. For one thing what is good for business in the long run may be bad for business in the short run and vice versa. There are limits and the liberation of Iraq is just one example. No one seems to mention that the US went to war with Germany, Japan and Italy, virtually destroyed them and then helped rebuild them to the point that they are now allies. So, what's the point of the repeated references to the US having helped Saddam at one time. Basically, countries do what serves their perceived interests. The strong ones have far more options than the weak ones, who are left to accept the status quo because there is nothing much they can do about anything.
