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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (43123)9/10/2002 10:17:13 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
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.

From reading your posts, I think you fit in with what Nicholas Lemann, in his article in "New Yorker" calls the "Realist" position. You agree that force should be used, but you and I disagree on how much force should be used, and against whom. It would be easier to know where you are at, if I knew if you agreed with Bush that we should dump Arafat.

I believe we are going to have to make sure there are major regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Syria, and an end to Syria's colonization of Lebanon. The Iraq invasion will probably cause a "domino" effect on the other countries involved. If it does not, we will have to take further action. I do not expect "Sweetness and Light" to instantly come out of this, but we will then be in a position to find and neutralize the Islamists. We are going to be doing this for a long time.

I believe our Government owes it to our citizens to do everything they can to stop another major attack on this country. I don't think that anything less than what I am proposing will do the job.

I understand that you, and many others here, disagree with me. Many of you think that what I propose will only make it worse. You may be right. I don't think so.