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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17582)	1/30/2002 5:09:00 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>We have heard this argument openly from Bin Laden et. al. time and again. Why don't we believe they are sincere?<< Because I don't believe OBL is representative of the majority of Muslims or the majority of Arab peoples. And he certainly does not represent a good model suggesting what Arab governments are likely to do. Most of the examples you cite as weakness, I interpret as 'bad planning at the top' and I don't find it at all difficult distinguishing between the US populace and its government.... just as I think the same holds true with most populations and their governments. That doesn't overlook that a substantive portion of a population tends to be supportive of government BS... but it is rare to see a majority go that far, beyond brief moments of crisis. And soft-headed me thinks a sizable number of Arab folks can sort out the cows from the cowpies too. Also, mindset or no mindset, Hitler threatened the world. Arafat is a bit actor who is dangerous, but can't threaten much of anyone outside the 'hood'. I think I'm fairly average in my approach to things. When I start hearing repetitious calls from one side or another that the sky is about to fall, that we must do this or else, or that the end is near, it generally makes me switch to the Discovery Channel where I can learn something based on reason, instead of emotion . I suppose I err, that I've been lulled into complacency and that more innocents will die (perhaps even me) because I'm not writing my Congress demanding war against every scary Tom Dick & Abdul out there. But I simply hold that violence begets violence and most of the time it should only be used as a last resort and then used effectively, not endlessly. The attack on the Marines in Lebanon, imo, should have been more aggressively countered. That, the WTC and Oklahoma City are, after all, major events that impacted great numbers of US lives. The major purpose of our federal government is to provide for the common defense and over 2 centuries, it, and our GIs have provided us more peace than most countries have ever enjoyed. I don't believe it can be perfect and I doubt we'll be significantly safer if we start showing the world that our every gunport is bristling with armaments and our yayhoos are more bellicose than theirs. Certainly, foreign policy requires regular reassessment, strategies require shifting and we need to adapt as the world changes. But I think we're pretty effective at those things - sometimes with a little luck. I think, for example, that using strategic strikes against WMD facilities (most of which we probably have pretty well pinpointed) is still an effective containment policy to limit the threat of Hussein, as opposed to a full-scale effort to topple the Iraqi government and military, which would be far more costly on both sides. If that policy causes others to mistake our strategy for weakness and Syria, or Iran decides to enter the fray, I think we can respond accordingly and effectively, crossing that bridge when we come to it. The voices calling for us to assume the imperialist mantle in such a way that we wield a big bat at every sign of unfriendliness tend to overlook the fact that that has historically led to increasing hatred and opposition and the empire's overthrow or decline. Yes, let's be vigilant. Let's be effective. But let's define and create as we go, rather than rely on bullying everyone who thinks we stink. It is only when a war is entered that our tactics should be ruthless to the point of maximum effect. Being so ruthless the rest of the time - despite perceptions others may have - tends to be counterproductive. In our War against Terrorism, our objective is to eliminate terrorists and limit future attacks on us by doing so. It is not to convince others that we are good, or to increase popularity, or to make Arafat bark like a poodle because he endangers Israelis. The Israelis are sufficiently strong enough to protect themselves from the Palestinians and our support services are sufficient to keep most outsiders out of it. I don't believe a single Arab government views us as weak; even Hussein's move in Kuwait was not based on that but on a misreading of what our response was going to be (whether this was a planned deception a la Glaspie or not ). Certainly, WMDs can alter things. And the Prez, in his speech tonight, pretty much signalled that one shift in policy, claiming a right to take out such facilities preemptively. For now, that oughta suffice. If compassion is viewed as weakness in those countries, some of those Peace Corps ideas may go nowhere. But I think it would be silly to stop extending a hand of friendship and compassion because of what others think. An 'all-compassion-all-the-time' approach would be weak, but compassion, in my mind, is a strength. Besides being an ethical principle, it complements and balances our judicious and effective uses of force. But my major objection to what you wrote was about the notion that we 'earned' or 'deserved' the 911 attacks. If you're saying only that most Arabs or most Muslims believe that, and you do not, that makes your statement more understandable. But I'm still not convinced - based on what I observed throughout the Middle East in the wake of 911 - that even that's true. Possibly, 'many' feel that way. I have yet to see the evidence that 'most' do. Our foreign policy planners should always be aware of such sentiments, particularly to determine if perceptions are shifting markedly. But the crafting of policy should remain on the effective representation of our interests and the protection of our citizenry, above and before its efforts to improve our PR.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (17582)	1/30/2002 7:38:28 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>compassionate' is not a compliment in their world view. Arab leaders think like the ancient Romans; compassion is for women<< We aren't Arabs, nor are we ancient Romans. Nor do we strive to become more like them. Nor do we think being like a woman is an insult. Most women around the world don't think being like a woman is an insult, either. It's a very rare woman who says "like a woman" as part of a disparaging epithet, IMO. Actually, I thought most Jews thought compassion was a good thing, e.g, performing mitzvot.