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: John Lacelle who wrote (15851)	1/25/2000 1:01:00 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

>Jessie Helms earns my respect! He deserves to be locked up in a room with Allbright! >Am I the only one who thinks that the United States should not turn into a UN Protectorate? What are you talking about? We don't even pay our dues to the UN. We use them when we need them (Gulf War) and we bypass them for NATO when we can't use them >Great nations lead by example, not by turning themselves into pawns of a pathetic assembly of corruption. And Washington is an ideal assembly of corruption? Or the European Union? Or the German govt? Or any govt? >The UN has done nothing but fail in its efforts to bring peace and prosperity to the world. Let's substitute Nato for UN then....we woke up everyone around the world to say enough is enough >Now these liberal loons like the Clintons want the US to live under UN law. John, we know you don't like Clinton but sometimes your hate of him make you say stuff which makes no sense. > I think we should just pull out and let the stupid assembly crumble. Will this lower our taxes?<g>

To: John Lacelle who wrote (15851)	1/26/2000 8:33:00 AM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 17770

In a related development, Russia's Federal Security Service spokesman, Alexander Zdanovich, said there were no ethnic Chechens among 14 suspected organisers of the bombing campaign back in September. But he did say the suspects had been trained in Chechnya and might be hiding there now. news.bbc.co.uk

To: John Lacelle who wrote (15851)	1/27/2000 6:44:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

BENEVOLENT HEGEMONY TWENTY YEARS later, it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism. Today's lukewarm consensus about America's reduced role in a post-Cold War world is wrong. Conservatives should not accede to it; it is bad for the country and, incidentally, bad for conservatism. Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role. What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world. The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action. [snip] ceip.org I think I agree with the above opinion. I believe that, despite an overhyped corporate agenda (ie all that hype about "free" markets, "free" enterprise, etc), the US is merely enforcing a benevolent hegemony --or, at least, the closest thing to such a geopolitical endeavour.... That's why I think that the real power of the USA lies more in its social mythology than in its military. If the US is branded as today's unchallenged superpower, it's because no other country on earth can realistically challenge the US social model --except Europe. Other civilizations (China, Japan, Russia,...) could not but exert a malevolent hegemony. That's why I believe that even foreign leaders from China, Russia, and, to some extent, from Europe as well, don't challenge the American creed --they pretend to do so. Which Chinese or European leader could sincerely claim that his or her national model could be extended worldwide? None. Why? Because their very social fabrics ARE NOT multicultural! That is not to claim the US is perfect: Americans still pay a heavy price (toll?) to smooth out bigotry, racism, and parochialism within their own country.... Well, at least, since Americans have tackled these issues (over the last 200 years), it brought them to the forefront of multiculturalism. For that matter, all the countries that currently oppose and fight against the so-called US hegemony don't have any ALTERNATIVE AGENDA: they don't say "hey! wait a minute.... Instead of Uncle Sam's one-size-fits-all program for the world, we the French (or the Chinese/Russians/....) want to offer you our Beaujolais-Nouveau program, that is a worldwide French-minded agenda!" All the opponents to "globalization" have to offer is their own brand of isolationism!! What's Austria's reviving nationalism? What's France's neonationalism? What's Belgium's protofascism? What's (Northern) Italy's pet chauvinism, after all? It all comes down to the same thing: they're all facets of a crystallized European isolationism... Gus.