Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (144903)	9/7/2004 11:22:27 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Yes. I get the distinction. And, that is way different than the post I responded to. Your original post said that having a strong military has 'NOTHING' to do with winning the war on terrorism. Note the all caps... I disagree that it has 'NOTHING' to do with 'winning' a war on terrorism. First: The ONLY reason there are terrorist attacks in the first place is that the enemy recognizes they are helpless to advance their political agenda by confronting us on the military battle field. We are over-whelminly stronger. Second: The ONLY reason to have a military or a terrorist organization is to advance or maintain political objectives using a violent force where necessary. Third: If you don't want to use a military (or alternative force) to advance or maintain political objectives where necessary, then disban yours. The idea that everyone else will simply cooperate and 'just get along' is, of course, infantile. So, in deciding to disband your force you are also agreeing to subjugate your people to who ever has a force to be reconned with. When you represent the greatest economic resource in the world (USA), you wont have long to wait around. Of course it wouldn't be as simple as surrendering to the first one who challenged you since there would be many. The USA becomes the new battle field ... well it probably wouldn't be the United anything for long but you get the picture. "If you can wrap your mind around that distinction, then we could discuss ANY possible logical thought processes that would link having a strong military to being able to stop attacks like the one in Russia on the school." I have never understood why Russia feels compelled to invade and conquer (over and over again) Chechnya in the first place, unless it has something to do with some long term plan to start knocking over dominoes again. The scarriest part about the recent attack on the school is that it wasn't just Chechnyans. It wont stop, and it isn't winnable by the Russians. They can keep occupying Chechnya and will continue to present themselves as targets. I wish someone would explain to me what the interests of Russia, occupying Chechnya are...that would help this discussion.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next