From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Subject: Re: Priorities
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:57:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.204524.763@ils.nwu.edu> Cliff Chaput <chaput@ils.nwu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.182049.25954@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Martin
>Guerrero-LabA, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>>There is an assumption that domestic policy and foreign policy are
>mutually
>>exclusive.  If you have one, the other one won't affect it.
>>
>>But the problem is, there are connections.
>>
>>Let's take the issue of the War for the Liberation of Kuwait.
>>
>>Had Bill Clinton been president, based on his statements right before the
>>Gulf War, Kuwait would still be under Iraqi Control, and possibly
>threating
>>Saudi Arabia and other countries while we wouldhave been suffering to the
>>teeth in our domestic side.
>
>I don't think it's realistic to think that Iraq would have been a threat
>to Saudi Arabia or any of its border countries for that matter.  Remember 
>that Iraq had been at war with Iran (!) for 15 years without any progress 
>at all.  That leaves Turkey (attack a member of NATO?  I don't think so), 
>Jordan (no oil, traditionally an ally, and Israel would have kicked the 
>shit out of them), Saudi Arabia (huge defenses, much more powerful than 
>Iran), and Kuwait (no defenses to speak of, but plenty of oil, money, 
>power, and, consequently, friends in high places).  The idea that Iraq 
>could have conquered another country is preposterous.
>
>It was this position that lead to the idea that we could use economic 
>sanctions. The Iraqis certainly weren't going anywhere, and we wouldn't 
>have to risk (or disrupt) the lives of half a million soldiers.  


Isn't it interesting that now the Kuwait War is over, the Democrats are
complaining that the U.S. didn't do a good enough job and that Saddam
Hussein is still in power?  There was even the idea to go in and get Saddam
Hussein.  They seem to be saying that economic sanctions are not working.

However, if a Democrat had been president, they would probably say that
economic sanctions were working.

For the 
>record, every attempt to use economic sanctions by the US has been 
>successful in breaking down the opposition. The most notible example is
>the 
>role it played in toppling the Soviet Union (ironically a feat for which
>GB 
>takes sole credit).
>

>Perhaps part of our domestic agenda could have included making the US 
>less dependant on foreign oil. 

I agree.  But it takes lots and lots of time to make a proper transition
from oil to some other form.

>Then oil prices could skyrocket all they 
>want with minimal effect on the US.  Instead of getting away from oil, 
>however, GB earmarked the majority of the transportation budget for 
>building and improving roads and highways.  

I have no complaint with what GB did.

>Public transportation and a 
>nation-wide high-speed rail system would have been money better spent.
>

But it is also the fault of local interests.  Out here in the Bay Area,
counties have said NO to a Rapid Transit Train system going through their
counties.  BART would like to expand but it has trouble going up against
local government and interests.

>>Also, when other nations suffer, like the Soviet Union, and perhaps
>nations
>>in the European Community, for example, we suffer too.
>>
>>We live in a global economy.  We do not want to go back to the days prior
>>to World War I or World War II where the U.S. becomes isolationist in
>nature.
>
>The argument works the other way, too. While it might seem that issues
>like 
>transportation, economy, health, and education are all domestic issues 
>(a.k.a. "infrastructure"), they also make us more attractive to foreign 
>manufacturers. In the global economy, we need to bring as much production 
>into the US as possible. This means having a workforce that is educated 
>(trained), healthy (reducing sick days and removing the health-care
>burdon 
>from companies), comfortable (employees who aren't struggling to make
>ends 
>meet), informed (up to date on their field and in contact with many 
>resources), and mobile (able to get to work, between plants, to customers 
>and suppliers). 

I don't quite see where we disagree too much.  

I want to see America not as bickering among ourselves, complaining about
this and that, and putting huge tremendous barriers to the outside.  I want
to unify America to be able to compete in the global market.  Education
is a part of it.  Incentive to innovate not incentive to remain stagnant
must be a priority.  

Let's stop the bickering and get with it!


>
>An example of this in action is Malasia, where they dumped 85% of their 
>tax money into education.  Now countries all over the world manufacture 
>electronics in Malasia because they have people who know how to do the 
>job.  

It is probably cheaper labor, too.

>And with all that foreign money going in to the local community, 
>Malasia's economy is thriving.
>
Of course.  But had Malaysia put trade barriers and things of that sort,
Malaysia would probably be suffering right now.

>>The world is becoming smaller and smaller.  What affects "them" will, in 
>>the end affect us.  Foreign policy and diplomacy are one of the key
>aspects
>>in domestic affairs.
>
>Very true, but also remember that domestic affairs are also one of the 
>key aspects of foreign policy.

Where are our BIG disagreements?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton