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 (43013)	9/10/2002 2:37:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>>The contrast between the Democrats' faith in international treaties and organizations and the hawks' mistrust of them couldn't be more deep-seated; it reflects fundamentally different views of human nature.<<<< You could see this clearly the Bill Moyer's Now transcript. Eric Rouleau and Seyla Benhabib both think the international system is a strong and worthy thing that must be upheld and strengthened, and have nothing but contempt for the American cowboy Krauthammer who actually says that countries are in a Hobbsean state of nature. Krauthammer knows where Rouleau and Benhabib are coming from, of course; he just thinks that their precious international system is a hothouse flower that only grew up under the American nuclear umbrella, an aspect of affairs they choose to forget. Especially considering the current efforts to get America to say "Mother, may I?" before undertaking a war. Those that tend to think as I do, believe that force is the only thing that the Islamists respect, and we will have to use it to solve our problems. Those who disagree think that force will backfire on us and we must work to negotiate our way out of this. Unfortunately, the two positions are not contradictory. Even if we have to use force, it could still backfire. I watched Cheney on PBS last night, and based on that, I think we will move on Iraq. I think the Administration will "go through the motions" with the UN and Congress, and then go. I have thought we would go into Iraq since February, based on reading the tea leaves from this administration. Now I think it will be soon, before the end of the year.

To: LindyBill who wrote (43013)	9/10/2002 8:34:19 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Those that tend to think as I do, believe that force is the only thing that the Islamists respect, and we will have to use it to solve our problems. Those who disagree think that force will backfire on us and we must work to negotiate our way out of this. Negotiate our way out of what? We need to take action against real threats. AQ is the enemy. The US should take action against AQ. The US has been unable to destroy AQ. It doesn't make sense to lash out at other entities in an effort to divert attention from the failure to disable the enemy. Keep your eye on the ball. I favor effective action wrt the ME. I favor action that will make a difference. Action that will not lead to chaos. Reduce dependence on foreign oil. ACTION: Simple legislation which forces the use of existing technology to increase the MPG of the US vehicle fleet. This does not mean one has to give up the beloved SUVs. Just increase the gas efficiency. ACTION: Provide tax incentives for the use of alternative domestic fuels eg Solar. Balance the US stance in the ME. ACTION: Withhold funds from Israel until it moves to its 1967 borders. ACTION: Propose a viable Palestinian state and make definitive moves towards its end. Zeuspaul

To: LindyBill who wrote (43013)	9/10/2002 9:58:31 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Those that tend to think as I do, believe that force is the only thing that the Islamists respect, and we will have to use it to solve our problems. Those who disagree think that force will backfire on us and we must work to negotiate our way out of this. That leaves out those of us who have no fundamental objection to the use of force, provided that it is used intelligently and aimed with precision at the forces that threaten us. I had no objection to the use of force in Afghanistan, and I can think of a few other places in which it would do a great deal of good if used with direction and discretion. The indiscriminate use of force, IMO, will create more threats than it will resolve. I think we will only succeed at this "War" we are in by forcing major changes in the ME. A scary opinion, because our ability to force major changes in the ME is very doubtful. We can defeat the armies, but that's only a first step to major change. Democracy cannot be imposed from outside.