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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (46000)	9/21/2002 10:26:39 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven Den Beste tries to figure out what, exactly, the left is arguing for, as the arguments make so little sense on a mechanistic or diplomatic level. How's he do?: When they say, "Ask yourselves why everyone hates you" what they're trying to tell us is that we've built up such a huge load of bad karma that at this point the universal principle of cosmic justice has mobilized nearly the entire rest of the human race against us, which is why dealing with just the Arabs is a pointless waste of time. I think this idea of cosmic justice and historical inevitability pervades much of leftist thinking. Take, for instance, the idea of any kind of international law, whether it be the UN or the International Criminal Court or "Just War" ideology or the "law of nations". I don't believe in any of them. It's not that I think the concepts are evil or stupid; it's just that I don't believe that they can be implemented in practice in the world I live in. There's too much possibility of free riding, of spoiling of the commons, of defections (per the Prisoner's Dilemma). There's too much opportunity for abuse, for those systems to be subverted and used to fulfill some particular group's agenda. Those on the other side, who favor those things, don't see it that way. International law isn't just a construct of humans; it's actually a cosmic principle. It doesn't need to be enforced through war, because it will be enforced by cosmic payback. The legal system won't be subverted because in a real sense doing so would violate a law of physics. The US objects to the ICC because our government is concerned that the ICC will be used to get revenge on Americans, as a way of pursuing vendettas against our nation. Many elsewhere object that though a narrow reading of the charter shows that such a thing is conceivable, that it won't actually happen. But when pressed to explain why not, they don't have any answer. I think the reason is that they truly believe that it's impossible for it to happen; God, or Karma, or Cosmic Justice or the flow of history won't in the long run permit it. There may be short term abuses, but in the long run justice will out and those who attempt to abuse the system will get their comeuppance, as indeed the US is getting its comeuppance now because it is violating the system of international law. And so, when they say that the right answer for the US in the face of the attacks is to ratify Kyoto and the ICC treaty and all the rest of that stuff, to cease to be unilateral and start being multilateral, to increase aid and reduce military spending, they're completely serious. What all those things will do is to reduce our burden of sin, and thus reduce the amount of punishment that the universe will mete out to us. I can't be certain that this is how they're thinking. But I can't come up with any other rational explanation. I have no doubt that some will instantly accuse me of creating a strawman, but that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm just trying to figure out how anyone could think that having the US work to bring clean drinking water to everyone in Peru and reduce our CO2 emissions would somehow stop radical Arabs from trying to destroy America. Those things don't seem connected to me in any important way, within my mechanistic view of the universe, but perhaps to others there actually is some sort of connection. http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Cosmicjustice.shtml

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (46000)	9/21/2002 10:46:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What if when the UN takes a vote and does not ratify the proposals as submitted.No amount of further " consultation " can meet an acceptable compromise, and the US walks away to begin unilateral action? Unilateral action begins as a regime change attempt with no other ME country onboard, except Israel, as all those countries have backed a UN only resolution I don't know exactly what would happen then, but I highly doubt your 'no country except Israel' scenario. When the US talks, people listen, and I think our current allies -- Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Qattar, and yes even SA, would still be with us. Wasn't just a few weeks ago that we were hearing how nobody but Israel would be with us. Then hey presto, it turned out we were serious, suddenly we had troops and allies everywhere, and even SA lets us use our bases. Now you tell me they're all going to refuse permission again if we don't get the UN vote? Very noble minded of them, to risk our anger for the sake of supporting the UN. Which is why it wouldn't happen that way. We are seriously throwing our weight around in the Gulf. If we don't, Saddam will. And I tell you, the number of countries who would rather have us be master than Saddam is quite large, though most of them are still denying it publicly. But that's only to be expected.

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (46000)	9/22/2002 1:35:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush Doctrine Lead Editorial The New York Times Sunday, September 22, 2002 As a presidential candidate two years ago, George W. Bush called for a degree of humility in our dealings with other nations. Since Mr. Bush took office, it has often been hard to locate that sentiment in his foreign policy. The latest and most definitive articulation of his views, published on Friday, reflects a good deal more modesty and generosity than earlier expressions, but it also bristles with bald assertions of American power. Mr. Bush's Texas supporters may like it — he instructed his staff to write it in plain English so "the boys in Lubbock" could read it — but it is sure to make the rest of the world uneasy, including America's closest allies. The tension between idealism and realism in foreign policy runs through America history, and the fault lines are evident in Mr. Bush's policy statement. The paper — a policy summation that every president is required to submit to Congress — seems in some sections to be animated by the most enlightened and constructive impulses of the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and the Marshall Plan. It dedicates the nation to extending the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to struggling countries around the globe. Mr. Bush speaks eloquently in an introductory letter about working with other nations to combat disease and alleviate poverty, and he reaffirms his determination to increase American foreign aid. At other points, the paper sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced. Given Mr. Bush's lone-wolf record on matters like global warming, and the nature of the issues he now faces, including a looming confrontation with Iraq, it is clear these combative attitudes will be driving Washington policy in the months ahead. The boys in Lubbock may want to pause before signing on for the overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined. Mr. Bush imagines an intimidating, heavyweight America. A few of the policy prescriptions capture the spirit: American military power will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from ever trying to challenge the military supremacy of the United States. Washington is free to take pre-emptive action against hostile states that are developing weapons of mass destruction. The successful strategies of the cold war, which relied on the threat of overwhelming American retaliation to deter foreign aggression, are largely obsolete. Forceful measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons are more effective than treaties. In an era of international terrorism and the constant danger of devastating attacks, there is good reason for Mr. Bush to keep the nation strong and vigilant. Striking first to prevent aggression is not unreasonable when dealing with groups like Al Qaeda, which operate independently of the restraints that govern the behavior of most nation-states. Intercepting a shipment of smuggled plutonium before it reaches a rogue nation makes sense if countries are unwilling or unable to enforce treaty commitments to block the spread of nuclear materials. But when these pugnacious strategies become the dominant theme in American conduct, overwhelming more cooperative instincts, the nation risks alienating its friends and undermining the very interests that Mr. Bush seeks to protect. Strong, confident leaders need not be arrogant leaders. Indeed, arrogance subverts effective leadership. Whether the issue is protection of the environment or protection of the homeland, the United States needs help. In securing America's safety, Mr. Bush must be careful not to create a fortress America that inspires the enmity rather than the envy of the world. nytimes.com