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: jlallen who wrote (41651)	12/26/2001 1:45:46 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Gee, that's the first time you've called me a demolib. Not sure whether I should feel complimented or insulted.

To: jlallen who wrote (41651)	12/26/2001 4:14:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In times where there was no significant direct threat of terrorism to our citizenry we had two main concerns about our porous borders. The first was that our economy might be negatively impacted by the loose controls. The other concern was that our cultural balance could become to disoriented. Neither of these concerns were considered significant enough to do any thing other than encourage our neighbors to be responsible on their ends. Last I heard we are still at war (sort of) with the Al-Quaida terrorist network and their associates. How is it that we are having a discussion about the US appearing "Bossy" in the current context. I understood our strategy to be attack terrorist with the goal of killing them and destroying the network and make a concerted effort to do everything possible to improve national security. Attack, kill, anialate but don't use BOSSY language? hmmmmmm, interesting world I live in.

To: jlallen who wrote (41651)	12/27/2001 7:44:18 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Canada is very far from being on our hit list, and NAFTA pretty much sets the rules for economic relations. Once severe retaliation is off the table, there is a limit to how "bossy" we can be. We have sometimes lost respect, in fact, for acting like a sweaty young man on his first date, so eager to woo others that we demean ourselves in the process ("Oh my, what will the Europeans think!"). De Gaulle, for example, should never have been allowed to pull out of the NATO command structure while retaining full rights within the councils of the alliance. Other countries in Latin America view Castro as having successfully thumbed his nose at the United States for over 40 years, and derive inspiration from that fact, even though we retain a base on Guantanamo Bay! Whether or not we should have gotten involved in the first place, our conduct of the war in Vietnam (supposedly showing the limits of US resolve) led to Soviet adventurism in the late '70s and early '80s, in Central America, in more vigorous support of regimes like Iraq in the Middle East, in helping terrorists develop networks and improving training and operational capabilities, and, of course, in trying to install a Communist regime, against all odds, in Afghanistan. Our willingness to support the mujaheddin, to take preliminary steps to counter the terror network, to support the Contras, and, perhaps most importantly, to challenge Iraq and prevail in a stunning burst of energy, were key factors in demonstrating both strategic resolve and operational superiority. Had we invaded North Vietnam, we might have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. In sum, one can be magnanimous only in a context where one commands respect. Our problem has been less a matter of "bullying" than of not being willing to behave like a great power.