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.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (2048)	10/10/2000 10:01:30 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 10042

It seems we are often called upon to be the peacekeepers, the guardians, the tough guys, the enforcers for causes and countries other than our own. Do we need a bigger stick for this reason? Two questions here, really. First, should we really be so involved in these missions, second, assuming the answer to the above is "yes", do they mean that we need a bigger stick. To the first question I would say yes, with major reservations. Peacekeeping missions in general benefit the status quo powers, who have nothing to gain from disorder, and we are the premiere status quo power. I do think we should be pressing regional allies (also status quo powers) to do more; East Timor, where the US had very little involvement, is a good example of how this could be done. Kosovo definitely needed more European involvement. I'd like to see the UN hire several regiments of Nepalese Gurkhas as a permanent peacekeeping force; I think they'd be cheaper to maintain and deploy than our troops, and would avoid the imperial appearance. I don't think our stick is too small for peacekeeping missions, I just think it's the wrong stick. Our high-tech military is designed for a different kind of war, and is very expensive to keep in the field. My opinions only, of course. I don't know that either party is going to give us that, do you? Here we agree completely....