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: JohnM who wrote (19926)	2/25/2002 9:10:17 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Instead of thinking of the steps which need to be taken to get to democratic political institutions quickly because that would produce security and political equality; I'm now thinking of the steps which would produce security and stability which might, down the road, produce democratic political institutions. Big change for me.<< I wonder if this can be extrapolated to failed communities, as well, where illegitimacy, dysfunction and substance abuse run high. First security & stability, then... >>if stable states are less likely to harbor the bin Ladens of the world, then it seems to me there is even greater need for the US to be a part of international bodies rather than it's current go-it-alone cowboy stance.<< First of all, the 'less likely' part requires further examination. We have our McVeigh, McNichols, Kaczinsky, Moore, Fromm, Oswald, Manson, etc. in a non-failed nation, right? Much of the cowboy stance seems to be cowboy rhetoric designed to pressure the international bodies to move in a certain direction, where joint deeds result. Not always, but most of the time. But you've raised some excellent points, John, definitely worthy of further exploration.

To: JohnM who wrote (19926)	2/25/2002 10:30:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm now thinking of the steps which would produce security and stability which might, down the road, produce democratic political institutions. Big change for me. Well... prepare yourself to have liberals claim you are supporting repressive regimes for the benefit of corporate America..... After all, it's easy for them to criticize, but rather difficult for most of them to actually solve these kinds of problems. They lose patience and suddenly find the military a useful tool to achieve their nation-building aims. As for the US "go it alone" policy, I would disagree. US actions are essentially the result of not having been attacked by extremists harbored in these roque nations, but also are the result of the UN's failure as an institution that can command any respect since it is so heavily influenced by the corrupt governments which are the heart of the problem. They way I look at it, the UN has been ill structured from the very beginnning... The UN is a democratic body where non-democratic governments are permitted to have a say. That's inherently illogical. The UN should exist for democratic members only, or those with the essential basic democratic structures, if only to create an inducement for those dictatorships to be subverted by internal political interests which wish to participate in the benefits that UN membership can provide. If non-democratic members want to be non-voting "associate members", that would be fine. But only democratic governments should be permitted to vote in a democratic UN. But I digress... The point is that the US cannot always afford to wait for the UN to get its collective act together. That could take forever and result in more Ruwandas and Bosnias. The US is doing what the UN should have done a decade ago in Afghanistan. Everyone gripes about the US pulling out of Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated, but no one wants to ask where the UN was, or why its assembly apparently cared little about what was occurring there. The way I look at it, where the interests of the UN and US converge, we can work together. But I'll be damned if I'll subvert US security to UN control and/or decision making. Hawk