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: Bilow who wrote (36788)	8/10/2002 5:23:47 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

Hi CB, It has been accepted political fact in this country that the US should never get into a war without full support from the American people. The right wing is split on Iraq. The left wing is against it. There is not sufficient political will to fight in Iraq. There's enough will to make the initial invasion, but there isn't enough to put up with the inevitable guerilla war that would result between the US, the numerous Baathists, the Kurds, and the Islamic Fundamentalists. The thing you closet "Hoover Institutionalists" really need to worry about is an Iraq invasion which is wildly successful at eliminating the Baathists with minor casualties and no more than a 3 month visitation by our "fuzzy faced" progeny. There is far to much talk of the "U.S. as sole surviving super power." Nothing convinces an Emperor of the efficacy of his "new clothes" like a quick parade through the brambles with nary a nick or cut to show for it. <vbg> 0\|0

To: Bilow who wrote (36788)	8/10/2002 12:28:22 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hey, I thought the conservatives were against having US soldiers fight for the United Nations, have you changed your mind? Some are, some aren't. Personally, I'm more focused on only permitting US troops to be deployed under competent leadership with some measure of "veto" authority if the local US commander believes his troops are being place at inordinate risk. After all, we fought the Korean War under the auspices of the UN. And we would have fought the Vietnam war under the same auspice had it not been for the permanent veto authority of the USSR (who abstained on the Korea vote). But let's face some facts here. The UN is a "nice idea", with many inherent flaws in actuality. The greatest problem with the UN is that we permit non-democratic regimes to hold high-level positions in the assembly and the security council (Syria being the most recent of note). And non-democratic regimes have little vested interest in promoting the ideals of the UN. Personally, non-democratic countries should have associate status in the UN until they are certifed by widely accepted definitions of pluralism as having met democratic criteria. And I mean this for Authoritarian as well as Totalitarian regimes. It's always been ludicrous to undermine the vision of the UN as a framework for a world government by permitting non-democratic regimes run by non-elected tyrants to have voting status. Let them participate, but by no means let them have a meaningful say in what the UN considers to be in the interests of global democracy. That would be tantamount to having 1/3 of each state governments in the US becoming non-democratic and each "governor" holding power by virtue of being able to oppress the citizens of their states. Can you imagine giving them representation in the Senate and HofR?? And that's not such a far-fetched analogy since originally each US state considered itself sovereign under a conferation of states (present day Europe), only later subjugating itself to a central Federal government. The same will have to be the case with any world government. It must represent only common democratic values, and those not willing to comply must be excluded from controlling those states (countries) who are willing to surrender part of their sovereignty to a central government (in this case global). That's why I can't understand this belief that people have that Iraq somehow represents a "country" in the way in which we define ourselves. Iraq, and any other non-democratic and tyrannical government, is really nothing but a geographic entity run by a priviledged few. It certainly does not represent the majority will of the nationalities living within those boundaries. Thus, it's ludicrous to grant a tyrannical regime the same rights and respect that we bestow upon democratic societies. We're at risk of pissing off everyone in the country. Heaven forbid... You mean they might actually attack us? Like attacking the Pentagon and WTC?? Thousands of people were killed there, from ALL OVER THE WORLD. I guess we should just sit on our hands, hunker down, and hope we don't piss anyone else off to the extent that they might commit more terrorist attacks, right?? Not only does the US exhibit a lack of political will which inevitably costs us far more later on, but it seems we are pretty short-sighted with regard to when someone attacks us... (at least that's the impression I'm getting from you). After all, the Taleban of Afghanistan didn't attack us. Their only crime was harboring elements of Al Qaeda. And now Saddam Hussein is harboring Kurdish members of Al-Qaeda and threatening to destabilize the region even more, obtaining nuclear weapons and intimidating every other country in the region. But that's not sufficient, eh?? Not even when it suggests that, instead of a few hundred potential casualties, we may suffere thousands in the future?? I just hope that folks expressing opinions such as yours will acknowledge them 5-10 years down the line when we're required to send millions of US troops to the region to confront an Arab population unified under tyrannical control and possessing nuclear weapons, a will to wage Jihad, and a desire to collect 72 virgins. What is at risk here is seeing the entire Arab region unified under a barbaric theocratic culture that will make the Kamikaze Samurai of Imperial Japan look like a bunch of school children. Hawk