SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (108547)7/28/2003 5:06:03 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
If I did not have an impending errand, I would address this in detail. Suffice it to say that even Kuwait liberalized somewhat under US pressure, and, in any event, was not properly a Neocon operation. We are moving quickly to give Iraqi civilians real authority in Iraq, so it is hardly a military government, even if the occupation authorities reserve rights to veto to preserve order. Afghanistan is too soon to call. It is difficult to avoid factionalization and tribal war there. At least it has a chance of a better result than the Taliban.

You do not sign treaties that you think are against your national interests too much. You use the mechanisms available to get out of treaties that are anachronistic, as with the ABM treaty. And you fudge here and there if you think there is an overriding reason to. Clinton did in the Kosovo matter, Bush did here. That is not a Neocon thing, that is how all states operate, including France, when it serves their interests........
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News