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: Ilaine who wrote (29300)	5/12/2002 11:03:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Just when we thought it was safe to get back in the water. REASON:Rumors of War By Nick Gillespie With the White House discussing plans to invade Iraq, mop-up operations continuing in Central Asia, and seemingly endless violence going on in Israel, it's easy to forget about the other places around the globe in which the U.S. is either directly waging or aiding in the waging of war. There's Colombia, for instance. Today's Washington Post reports on disturbing developments in that country's civil war, even as the U.S. releases $104 million in new aid; controversial drug-interdiction flights in Colombia and Peru are likely to resume some time later this year. There are active troops in the Philippines, peacekeepers in the Balkans, and some sort of presence in 130 countries. It's hardly clear whether George W. Bush's foreign policy is as disastrous as Al Gore opined way back when (to give Al Gore his due, as part of the Clinton administration, he knows something about disastrous foreign policy). But if the president's recent appearance with Ariel Sharon is any indication, it'll be some time before we get a full articulation of what comes next.

To: Ilaine who wrote (29300)	5/12/2002 3:55:51 PM
From: Doc Bones	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Think Back When thinking back drew a blank, I googled back to find that it will be difficult to pin this one on Clinton - Russian withdrawal was in early 1989. pbs.org FINAL RETREAT? MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour -- February 9, 1989 ROBERT MacNEIL: We turn now to a concluding chapter in a nine year story: the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Most of the 115,000 occupying troops have left the country. The remaining ones are trying to arrange an orderly exit by the February 15th deadline set in the peace agreement negotiated last year through the United Nations. Their departure leaves the communist government in Kabul facing an uncertain future as rebel Mujahadeen guerrillas move to take over positions vacated by the Russians. <snip> Bush (II) will help the Afghanis, but do you really think President Daschle or President Gore (God forbid) would make it a priority? God and Scalia did forbid it, but we have this summary of the candidates' debate positions: issues2000.org Bush compromises between internationalists and isolationists Bush has woven a middle ground between two battling factions of his party - internationalists who support engagement with great powers like China and isolationists who are deeply suspicious of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Drawing on the advice of Gen. Colin L. Powell, widely viewed as a potential secretary of state in a Bush administration, Bush is far more tentative about committing American troops and rules out their use for what he dismisses as nation building. “There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often,” he said in the final presidential debate. In the second debate he suggested a broader philosophical disagreement with Mr. Gore: “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.’” Gore, on the other hand, has repeatedly portrayed himself as a man who has come to believe in vigorous American intervention abroad Source: David Sanger, NY Times Oct 30, 2000 ----- Neither party has much favored foreign intervention since Vietnam, though the success of the Gulf War under Bush I changed that somewhat. I can recall a distinct lack of enthusiasm for intervention in Haiti by the Republicans, for example. Doc