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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (8158)	9/18/2001 7:13:34 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 23153

Anti-Americanism blinds the left to what's at stake 'I hear people say they are more worried by Bush than by anything Osama bin Laden might be considering' By: Anne McElvoy 19 September 2001 Terrorists committed a mass execution of American citizens. This must, of course, be America's fault. It had it coming for being arrogant. It had it coming for supporting Israel. They had it coming for being so big and rich. In short, it had it coming for being America. The best thing that any self- respecting British liberal sort can do at this time is thus counsel that retaliation would be "proportionate" (what, as in 5,000-plus of their civilians, one for each killed in the World Trade Centre last Tuesday?) The chorus of opinion has moved rapidly to articulate what measures we should not support, and what we should not do rather than what we should. On the face of it, this sounds like wise advice. No position is more agreeable to occupy than that of the voice of sound moderation, accusing others of extremism. But I know the beginning of a slanted argument when I hear one and this is not a debate: it's an attempt to close down debate. The response of much left-of-centre comment on this side of the Atlantic has been to suggest that sweet reason, humanity and logic demand we should be intensely sceptical, if not downright hostile, to American intentions. It equates being in favour of military action with being some sort of crypto right-winger who can think of no better idea than to blast a few goat herds to kingdom come. The tactic is depressingly familiar to anyone who had to fight it out with unilateralists during the Cold War ("Oh, so you're in favour of another Hiroshima and nuclear winter and making the planet uninhabitable...") I should say that I appreciate how worried many people are by what to do next and how genuine their fears are. But the doctrine of "do nothing " (or "do little") can also be a handy way of concealing a gut anti-Americanism. There is something profoundly distasteful in the posture that the US must "look at" what it might have done to deserve the annihilation of thousands of its citizens, as if blame could be evenly shared out. Reason is a delicate plant and one easily trodden under the stampede of the herd. I hear sensible people say that they are more worried by President George Bush's actions than by anything Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein have done or might be considering. Really, truly? I hear people laughing at Bush's folksy language, as if it were an essential part of the Presidential brief to respect the rhetorical tastes of the British intelligentsia when an act of warfare has been perpetrated inside his country. What will the anti-Americans find to say when the US finally does react? The whole swelling orchestration of negativity is intended to create an atmosphere in which anything that it does, however carefully considered, is deemed to be wrong. One of the strategic aims of all terrorists is to undermine the sense of identity and cohesion in the targeted state or institutions. If they can reduce their opponents to panicked squabbling hoards, so much the better. They are already on their way to succeeding in Britain, rather too well. These are times when liberals and the centre-left have a special duty to think about how to use military power for the good. That cannot be done by ramping up inchoate fear rather than a sense of quiet purpose in defeating a deadly common enemy. For me, being on the centre-left when it comes to the international role of the major democracies means not walking away from these choices. Unlike the isolationist sections of the right, we simply don't have the option of shrugging, "What a world!" and applying blinkers when we don't want to address the roots of evil. This was the real danger of George Bush – the threat that under his leadership, America would turn inwards and spend its time counting its vast wealth and admiring itself in the glass, instead of acting as a force for good in the wider world. That is no longer an option. The isolationism of conservative America was blown apart last week. But what about the isolationism of liberal Europe? The era of instant news breeds instant opinion to distort judgement. "Everyone" now knows that Osama bin Laden was a CIA creation. Yet the Independent on Sunday's investigation on the matter concludes that bin Laden may well not have been financed by the CIA at all. The myth that he did may be the result of confusion about Mujahedin factions. Me, I don't know whether the CIA funded bin Laden. I do know from grinding experience on similar topics that these things are very difficult to find out with any certainty. America's strategy is far more refined than its foes here suppose. They do seem to think Americans are genetically stupid. It is also more subtle than George Bush's warlike rhetoric. (Frankly, I could do with a bit less of that too, but then he's their president). As for the notion that it would all be different if only that nice Bill Clinton was still in charge, we are clearly in the grip of post-presidential delusion syndrome. Clinton was a class act and a great guy and all of that. But when it came to intervention abroad , he was a very partial success, led all too often by exclusively domestic considerations. It was Clinton who rained 70 pointless missiles on Afghanistan in 1998 and hit the wrong targets in Sudan in reprisal for the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. If you want to protest about gesture bombing, a measure carried out to appease the appetite for revenge, rather than for any rational military strategy, then Clinton's your bad guy. For all the pious injunctions to America not to "over-react", there has been has been no immediate miscalculation by Bush. All the signs are that his administration is pursuing a point-by-point strategy: first build a coalition with Pakistan. Then locate the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden. Next, apply pressure on the Mujahedin from Pakistan to extradite him. If that fails, which it very well might, prepare for a prolonged special forces offensive with bases inside Afghanistan and possibly Iraq aimed at destroying terrorist hideouts. Cruise missile strikes may well follow – but the signs are that Washington is clearer this time about their limited usefulness than it was three years ago. These are not stupid responses to what has happened. The naive and damaging position is to imagine that if we do nothing, terrorists will give up and go home. Modern terrorists are highly mobile, but not entirely free-range creatures. They seeks out sponsor states and are parasitic upon them. Any attempt to bring them to justice entails defeating the power which shields them. Beyond the sound and fury, Britain does have a role and a proud one. It is not in restraining hot-headed Bush, but in helping ensure that the Atlantic alliance holds together in Europe, with each country contributing to the effort in a way which is politically acceptable and which creates the most unity, rather than the most discord. That is the proper response of democracies under threat. Anything else is irresponsible naivete. argument.independent.co.uk

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (8158)	9/18/2001 8:42:19 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 23153

Since I remain expelled from the Strictly Dullness II thread, I am unable to post there the astonishing observation that even when an important part of the financial world literally caves in, realizing their fondest hopes for catastrophe, nothing much has happened with the price of gold. As I repeatedly pointed out, the only thing going for gold is its monetary mystique. Modern heap-leaching methods can produce increasing amounts of gold at steadily lower prices. What really got me expelled from that thread, though, was pointing out that although you might be able to use a Krugerrand to buy a hamburger, you would have trouble persuading Burger King to give you $275 or whatever in change. This proved to be a profoundly embarrassing observation. Fiat currencies do make it hard to know where you are at. "Go to cash!" But what if the Fed inflates the currency so that two years from now the cash is down 20% against everything you want to spend it on? But let's wait and see what the figures are in this latest round of currency inflation. We will know in 2-3 weeks.