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: carranza2 who wrote (47487)	9/27/2002 2:59:55 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I suspect that this is the ultimate point of the book, but of course I may be wrong as I haven't read it. I can't imagine that he would have anything too different from that sweeping statement. Moreover, it seems to fit in fairly well with the Bush Administration's rationales. Yes, he states that as the main point of the book in his opening materials. As for fitting with the Bush rationales, I genuinely can't say, not having read it but I expect to find the following given what else is in the first few pages and the bit that tek has posted here: 1. An attention to careful argument buttressed by careful attention to detailed evidence. The kind that helps citizens like me make up our minds. I need that in order to decide what policy I prefer and what I plan to do politically about it. I just noticed tek says he wavers between favoring an attack and not. The first because of Pollack's arguments, the second because of the way the Bush folk are going about it. My dilemma is whether to join public protests against Bush or not. Different place. I think the Pollack book will help me make up my mind. 2. A strong argument for the necessity of commitment to democratic institutions on the backside of an invasion. Since I doubt the Bush folk will come through on such a commitment, that leads me, also, to step back from the Bush approach. I say this because of Bush's frequent comments against what he called "nation building" in the campaign, and because of their obvious reluctance to do the dirty work of such in Afghanistan. But I do expect Pollack to impress upon me the danger of inaction. And I will have to think hard and long about it, as and after I have read it. I think we are reasonably (I was going to type "fairly" but I think that overstates the difference) close in our views. But we lean toward the issue from different political starting points