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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (26778)	9/12/2001 7:18:30 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Respond to of 82486

foreignpolicy-infocus.org This aticle is PRIOR to yesterday's events. More recently, the United States has focused attention on the activities of Osama Bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire orchestrating a number of terrorist cells operating out of the Middle East. Ironically, many of the key players in these terrorist networks originally received their training and support from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency when they were mobilized to fight the Soviet-backed communist regime that ruled Afghanistan in the 1980s. In August 1998, the United States bombed suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan—originally built by the CIA—in an effort to cripple Bin Laden’s movement. The U.S. simultaneously bombed a civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan under the apparently mistaken belief that it was developing chemical weapons that could be used by these terrorist networks. Given the highly questionable strategic value of such air strikes, these responses seem to be little more than foreign policy by catharsis. Though strong intelligence and interdiction efforts are important in the fight against terrorism, such impulsive military responses are likely to merely continue the cycle of violence. Well, not very encouraging is it ?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (26778)	9/13/2001 12:08:39 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Just a few observations: we are not prepared to garrison all of the states where forcing westernization would produce social and political turmoil, and therefore we encourage, but do not insist upon, democratization. I agree we should do more, I merely point out there are limits. Second, we are the largest economy, and are highly dependent upon foreign trade, including oil. We cannot afford to right off all regimes we disapprove us. Third, we are the only power that can organize for comparative stability, and therefore keep the international system relatively open and relatively peaceable. Thus, we may sometimes feel the need to support, through economic or military aid, powers that are problematic. For example, we tried to balance Iranian aspirations through cooperation with Iraq, until Iraq became too hot to deal with. It is not a science, after all. I do not defend all decisions, I merely say that it is hard to be in the hot seat......