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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51124)	10/11/2002 12:16:09 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: It is in the interest of the US to define coalitions as a means to an end so that its power is not emasculated by its "allies". Nadine - If this view you are voicing is common among the US public, I would be very concerned.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51124)	10/11/2002 12:25:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

We will now observe one of those marvelous paradoxes which keep appearing in politics. Since Bush won't require UN authorization for war, he'll get it. If the bill which passed Congress had included a requirement for UN authorization, it would not have happened. Isn't political logic grand? I believe the proper word here is "leadership."

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51124)	10/11/2002 2:33:54 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This goes back to the argument over whether coalitions are ends in themselves, or just means to an end. It is in the interests of the much weaker coalition partners to persuade the US that the coalition is a Necessary Good in and of itself because this gives the coalition partners a veto over US actions. Such a coalition will do little, but will restrain US power. It is in the interest of the US to define coalitions as a means to an end so that its power is not emasculated by its "allies". Actually it's not about this at all. Rather it's about what kind of world order will mark the future. Read Hendrik Hertzberg's piece in the most recent issue of The New Yorker. He argues that the new Bush doctrine can most readily be read as formula for a police state. We think of ourselves as the good guys. So why could anyone have any serious, reasonable misgivings about us having all this power and throwing our weight around like the schoolyard bully. So those who object must be impaired in some way. But without some agreement as to the rules, however loosely arrived, however difficult to enforce, we will be increasingly viewed as an international bully. The ramifications of that are not happy to see. We will be asking for attacks of every sort. It's a matter of style, but to quote an acquaintance, style sometimes becomes substance.