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 (35389)	7/30/2002 8:50:37 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

One difficult thing about dealing with the whole media bias issue is the problem of where you draw the center line. People, and media outlets, can easily be classified as left of center by the standards of one community, and right of center by the standards of another. Much also depends on the issues you use as your right/left criteria. I run up against this often, much to my amusement. Among many of my associates and friends I am classed as a solid right winger, being pro-globalization, pro-foreign investment in the 3rd world, fiscally conservative, generally pro-capitalist, highly suspicious of fundamentalist environmentalism, feminism, etc. In a place like SI, I move to the left of center, owing to a fairly liberal view on most social issues and a fairly cautious set of foreign policies. In either case, I haven't moved; the center line has. It's hard to decide whether any given media outlet inclines to the left or right of center until you have an acceptable consensus definition of the center, which I've yet to see.

To: JohnM who wrote (35389)	7/31/2002 12:04:23 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, you do realize that when Republicans and Independents refer to the 'Left', they are talking about the Democratic Party, not the Greens? They are certainly talking about the leftmost third of the political spectrum, not the leftmost three percent. By this measure, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times and CNN definitely count as left-wing, and are hardly without influence.

To: JohnM who wrote (35389)	7/31/2002 3:18:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We are all saying there should be a National debate on Iraq. Lets see if this hearing can start it. From The "NYT" July 31, 2002 Debating Iraq By JOSEPH R. BIDEN Jr. and RICHARD G. LUGAR WASHINGTON, Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power ? a goal many of us in Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings today. While the White House supports the hearings ? which have been coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee, administration officials will not participate at this time lest the president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely. Without prejudging any particular course of action, including the possibility of staying with nonmilitary options, we hope to start a national discussion of some critical questions. First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them, against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces and weapons. Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course. A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe. Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos. We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared. Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.