SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (148925)8/1/2002 11:28:44 AM
From: TimF  Respond to of 1574478
 
Initiatives that pre 9/11 would be viewed as
shocking attacks on constitutional rights go largely unopposed.


I recognize this danger, but I think you exaggerate the extent that it is happening. Actually to the extent it is happening it is nothing new. The constitution has been twisted like a pretzel so that the government can do what it wants since at least FDR, probably earlier. The problem is less of a crises where Bush is suddenly doing something horrible, then it is a chronic problem of lack of respect for the constitution that goes back for at least the better part of a century, with examples (like Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus) going back even further.

Actions that are sold to us as pre-emptive, in the aftermath of
9/11, exploit fear and patriotism. The problem is all this is beginning to look like Ramboism.


Attacking Iraq possibly might be a bad idea, certainly it could be stumbling into a mess, but it is not an example of mindless aggression. I see danger from the situation either way. If we invade Iraq we have to deal with Iraq after destroying their army and it would be a mess. Plus the action might make Arabs in other countries, or maybe even non Arab Muslims angry. But if we don't attack we risk Iraq getting nukes that it could use to deter the US from responding to aggressive Iraqi threats in the future and encourage others to think that if they want to get nukes and threaten their neighbors all they need is the willingness to deal with maybe a decade of sanctions, and maybe not even that. If the perceived cost of being a threatening nuclear power are lower the perceived benefits might cause more countries to go that way. They probably wont attack the US with nukes as they don't want there country turned into radioactive slag but they will try to keep the US from protecting its interests by threatening nuclear attacks. Its already happened, a senior Chinese official commented on how the US wouldn't want to lose
Los Angeles to save Taipei.

Tim



To: Alighieri who wrote (148925)8/1/2002 1:43:04 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574478
 
The 9/11 events have created a potent and dangerous brew. Bush and co. have a great chance to sell the country on initiatives that would never fly pre 9/11 because people are reluctant to oppose the government now. In time, this advantage will be lost, so the administration has to act quickly, and you know what they say about haste. Initiatives that pre 9/11 would be viewed as shocking attacks on constitutional rights go largely unopposed. Actions that are sold to us as pre-emptive, in the aftermath of 9/11, exploit fear and patriotism. The problem is all this is beginning to look like Ramboism.

Al, can't disagree with what you are saying. However, I do think people are starting to object to this new American militarism in the less conservative parts of the country. I know that out here the level of criticism is starting to rise. And we see that in the polls........I believe the latest polls show Bush at 65% and dropping.

This war on Iraq has the potential to destabilize the world and earn this country the hatred of Arabs for generations to come.

I don't know if it would destabilize the world but I do know that there is growing concern that with no real balance of power, the US might get carried away with itself.
As for the Arabs, I think at times they choose to see us in a negative light in order to support their negative biases including their anti semitism. Both sides have a lot to learn about each other.

Bin Laden may be achieving his objectives with the help of Bush and his administration. And, as you say, the lack of balance of power in the world makes it easier for the US to coerce an "alliance" to carry out this attack. Example: Turkey finally agreed to allow the US to use its bases after the US promised to forgive its debt of billions.

Don't you love it.......Bush is spending like there is no tomorrow [this war in Afghanistan is costing a small fortune] and then he turns around and forgives money owed to us. The conservative agenda is so out of whack, its scary........and worse, they think they are doing God's work.

This is the stuff I worried about after the 2000 election. The Sup. Ct's unprecedented intervention in the election set a very dangerous tone. I have this sinking feeling that in the near future, we will learn how important democracy really is to Americans.

ted



To: Alighieri who wrote (148925)8/1/2002 2:37:29 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574478
 
And, as you say, the lack of balance of power in the world makes it easier for the US to coerce an "alliance" to carry out this attack. Example: Turkey finally agreed to allow the US to use its bases after the US promised to forgive its debt of billions.

Forgiving the loans is not an example of coercing someone to be an ally. It might amount to buying an alliance but that is not the same as forcing one.

Tim