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: LindyBill who wrote (35467)	7/31/2002 11:39:13 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

You're mad as hell, too. So what? Want to come up with anything that indicates I'm "filled with hatred" for the current administration? Anything remotely comparable to the reams and reams of Clinton hatred that spews forth anywhere politics comes up on SI? Or comparable to the venom directed at Secretary of State Colin Powell by certain local elements of the Israeli lobby? I'm not taken with the Wolfowitz faction, and I find the incessant lockstep propagandizing irritating. Having had way more exposure to politics on SI than' I'd like, I am plenty familiar with hatred in that area. I guess maybe I'm guilty of "subtle" hatred, like the NYT "liberal" bias, which is, of course, far worse than all the explicit ethnic slurrage and broad brush condemnation of "liberals" that dominates around here.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35467)	7/31/2002 12:06:05 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Our Government's job is to defend us from the Terrorist threat. Frankly, Bill, the irony of these last few posts from you is wonderful. Here you are, comfortably ensconsed in one of the few regions of the US unlikely to take any sort of hit, arguing something has to be done yesterday to stop these guys. And here I am, don't know where Win is, living in Jersey, if I pop up on the ridge just outside the back door I can see the Manhattan skyline, so I'm in harm's way, arguing its more complicated than all that. Wonders of something or other.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35467)	7/31/2002 11:59:53 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

LB, <<I don't give a damn. Our Government's job is to defend us from the Terrorist threat. In order to do that they are going to have to "take down" one or more of these Governments.>> You seem to believe that "taking down" governments will eliminate the terrorist threat. But what if it just multiplies the threats? What if more governments are destabilized, and taken over by people sympathetic to enemies of the US? What if the govts that are "taken down" end up in the ripeness of time with other govts unsympathetic to the US, desiring revenge? Take them down too? What is the endgame? Installing a regime in a country with people who have intense internal conflicts in an area with hostile neighbors is not an act that has a great chance of success. Machiavelli and Clausewitz among others pointed out the obvious fact that wars always have unintended consequences, and I fear that the unintended consequences of a war with Iraq will not be positive for the US or the region or the world. On the other hand, this saber rattling may well just be the Bush admin playing domestic politics. Getting this on the front page at least competes with the economy and the markets and the deficits, dividing people's attention in a way that is favorable to the GOP. And if, by shaking the tree enough, Saddam blinks, and concessions, even if slight, are won, they become foreign policy heroes. And if nothing happens, they haven't lost much except for a few other countries thinking that they are irresponsible loose cannons (which they already believe anyway, I think), the American left gets in a tizzy and their constituents more energized as they have to "save the country" from the dire terrorist threats.

To: LindyBill who wrote (35467)	8/1/2002 12:01:10 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

LB, <<I don't give a damn. Our Government's job is to defend us from the Terrorist threat. In order to do that they are going to have to "take down" one or more of these Governments.>> You seem to believe that "taking down" governments will eliminate the terrorist threat. But what if it just multiplies the threats? What if more governments are destabilized, and taken over by people sympathetic to enemies of the US? What if the govts that are "taken down" end up in the ripeness of time with other govts unsympathetic to the US, desiring revenge? Take them down too? What is the endgame? Installing a regime in a country with people who have intense internal conflicts in an area with hostile neighbors is not an act that has a great chance of success. Machiavelli and Clausewitz among others pointed out the obvious fact that wars always have unintended consequences, and I fear that the unintended consequences of a war with Iraq will not be positive for the US or the region or the world. On the other hand, this saber rattling may well just be the Bush admin playing domestic politics. Getting this on the front page at least competes with the economy and the markets and the deficits, dividing people's attention in a way that is favorable to the GOP. And if, by shaking the tree enough, Saddam blinks, and concessions, even if slight, are won, they become foreign policy heroes. And if nothing happens, they haven't lost much except for a few other countries thinking that they are irresponsible loose cannons (which they already believe anyway, I think), the American left gets in a tizzy and their own constituents more energized as they have to "save the country" from the dire terrorist threats that the namby pamby "liberals" would allow. Pretty good way to get them out to vote, even if they don't actually go to war.