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: zonder who wrote (51956)	10/14/2002 12:31:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am really not qualified to make such suggestions, but I would be much more comfortable with a less aggressive foreign policy from the only remaining superpower of the world. Sure you are... It's not like foreign policy is some kind of "mysterious art"... It's not... It's about human relations, money, pride, arrogance, and most of all... POWER!!.. Anyone who has ever had to stand up to individuals who were bent upon creating their own little dictatorship(or mafia), whether in the office, the neighborhood, or the local church, has some expertise in dealing with these kinds of issues... Searching for WMDs in Iraq is little different than being forced to deal with drug dealers in your local neighborhood, without the benefit of any effective police force. Think about what you would be required to do in such an instant... No police.. and the local neighborhood association is afraid of repercussions from a potential shoot out with these guys because they live closer to them.. That's international relations.. in a nutshell.. Hawk

To: zonder who wrote (51956)	10/14/2002 1:43:44 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Zonder, I think a lot of us are not that far from you philisophically. The difference is in definition. As an example you do agree that a military solution might be necessary - you just prefer that it be put off until all other measures are exhausted. Unfortunately, the last 11 years of observing the Iraqi regime has given me the opinion that they will only negotiate in good faith when presented with a military response. When 'push comes to shove' as we say here, I think Saddam will back down and truly unfettered inspections will occur, but nothing less than an imminent invasion will or would have brought him to the negotiating table. He will (hopefully) accept a life that is less grand than he had hoped and we will have to live with him still in power (and the consequences to his people). John

To: zonder who wrote (51956)	10/14/2002 5:46:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Laden, so it was sort of justified, although 6,000 civilians dead is a rather unacceptable bill After the war was over, the AP went into Afghanistan to try to count the civilian dead and get to the bottom of the charges being flung around. They concluded that 600-1000 civilians had died (sorry, after so long it's going to take real hunting to find the links). That didn't stop many activists on the left from continuing to claim that many thousands of civilians had been killed.