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: JohnM who wrote (54808)10/26/2002 10:08:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
<<..."The issue is not whether we're the strongest nation," said Leslie H. Gelb, president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. "We are, in fact, stronger even than the British Empire was at its peak. The issue is what can you accomplish through military power — by being No. 1. And are you using this enormous power in the right way?"

On that score, he said, the Bush administration's record to date is mixed. Mr. Gelb gives the Bush team high marks for its policies on combating terrorism. But he is less impressed with other international initiatives, especially the administration's handling of its "muscular, tough, and essentially correct" stance toward Iraq.

"The diplomacy supporting the case for military action has not been well made," Mr. Gelb said, "which is key to employing the power they claim well."...>>

Keeping U.S. No. 1: Is It Wise? Is It New?
By JUDITH MILLER
nytimes.com

Good find John...I could really connect with Gelb's coments. The U.S. is INCREDIBLY POWERFUL but how we choose to use that power is so important.

-Scott



To: JohnM who wrote (54808)10/26/2002 12:17:59 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
John J. Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," argues that for nearly two centuries the United States has worked hard to be the most powerful state in the world and to prevent rivals from emerging.

An Academic who makes a statement like this wipes out his credibility. I find it difficult to believe it is a correct reflection of his views. If it is, the man is engaging in the worst sort of radical "Chomskyism". We have been working hard to run the world since almost 1802? We didn't even want to run it at the start of WWII. I just read a review of the cited book in FA.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20011101fabook5789/john-j-mearsheimer/the-tragedy-of-great-power-politics.html



To: JohnM who wrote (54808)10/26/2002 2:04:27 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 281500
 
>>"What is new here is that the United States has actually acknowledged what it does, rather than gussy up its impulses with liberal rhetoric."<<

I agree with this, mainly because it's what I've been saying since the National Security Strategy was published.
Message 18027378

At the time, I said that it was the logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine, which is exactly what Mearshimer is arguing. We've been the big frog in our own pond since Monroe articulated the Monroe Doctrine, 1823. But we're so used to it that we don't think about it.

In 1907, when Henry Adams wrote his autobiography, he recognized that the US was becoming an empire comparable to the Roman Empire.

The global balance of power shifted to the US during WWI, but the Brits did not want to admit it and the US did not recognize it. That's one of the causes of the Great Depression, the Brit economic tail trying to wag the US economic dog. I won't bore you with the story of exchange rates and interest rates, but protecting the pound at the expense of the dollar was what the Fed did until Benjamin Strong died and Hoover took office.

After WWII, there was no way to ignore it anymore. International finance has been centered on the dollar.

I think what confuses people is that the empire is the US economy. Other empires took power through seizing land.



To: JohnM who wrote (54808)10/26/2002 4:17:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Paul Wellstone / An idealistic servant of Minnesota


Editorial
The Minneapolis Star Tribune
Published Oct. 26, 2002

The deaths of Paul and Sheila Wellstone have brought shock and heartbreak to every corner of the state they loved to serve. Because their bond with Minnesotans was personal, Friday's plane crash took away not only a U.S. senator but two admired friends.

The Wellstones were on their way to the funeral of a friend's father in Eveleth, to be followed by more stops in an intense campaign for a third term. The uncertainty that now surrounds that election, just 10 days away, adds confusion to the state's grief.

Wellstone burst into Minnesota consciousness in the late 1980s as the unlikeliest of DFL candidates for the U.S. Senate. He was dismissed at first as a rumpled, outspoken leftover of the 1960s -- a radical champion of little people and liberal causes.

But he soon proved to be much more. A son of Russian Jewish immigrants, he was reared on love of country and faith in its ideal of justice for all. His concern for working families, for human rights, for the well-being of society's most vulnerable, was utterly genuine. He was an intellectual, holder of a doctorate in political science and a professor at prestigious Carleton College. He was a passionate orator. He was an even more skillful old-school political organizer, working precinct by precinct, even block by block. He could convince average Minnesotans that their participation in politics would make a difference -- and then establish the human network that made the promise come true.

Outspent but never outworked, Wellstone rode his rickety 1968 green campaign bus into the Senate in 1990, defeating incumbent Republican Rudy Boschwitz, and also won their rematch in 1996. Sheila was always at his side, and became a leading voice for domestic violence prevention and mental health care. So were their three children -- one of whom, Marcia, a teacher in White Bear Lake, lost her life with her parents yesterday.

Wellstone was an unconventional addition to the nation's most exclusive club. With his plaid shirt, brown parka and unshined shoes, he didn't much look like a senator. In his outspoken opposition to the first Bush administration's Gulf War plans, Wellstone didn't behave in usual freshman-senator fashion either.

But he was a quick study. He had enormous respect for both the institution of the Senate and the people who had sent him there. It was not long before he was making his mark on issues -- student aid, veterans' affairs, agriculture, campaign finance reform, rural development, labor law.

Wellstone did his homework, learned Senate procedures, and became an effective contributor and collaborator. He gained wide respect in return, often as much for his clear sincerity and tenacity as for his positions. It was commonplace for constituents to tell him plainly that they disagreed with him on issues -- but respected him, liked him and would vote for him again.

Wellstone was not a committee chair; he aspired to that role in a third term. But he was a master of the amendment process, and used it time and again to shape legislation carried by others. His recent lawmaking credits include a requirement that health insurance plans treat mental illness as any other disorder, blockage of a bankruptcy reform bill, inclusion of conservation payments to farmers in the 2002 farm bill, and efforts to give welfare recipients a chance to seek higher education.

Many noted changes in his manner and method after years in Washington, but not much changed at the core of the man. He remained an idealist and an optimist. He laughed easily, often at himself and his 5-foot-5 stature. He always remembered to thank the cooks and servers at a banquet, and to greet the guards at office doors. He remembered names with a facility that reminded old-timers of Hubert Humphrey. Indeed, Wellstone had Humphrey's zeal for politics, policy and -- most of all -- people.

Wellstone loved his work so much that, even as he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, he decided to break an old promise and seek reelection. He was loath to contribute by retirement to the possibility of a Republican takeover of the Senate. More significantly, perhaps, he was loath to sever the bond he had established with Minnesotans.

Now death has torn that bond. What abides are memories of a little man and his wife who made a big difference to Minnesota. That, and many heavy hearts.

startribune.com

Edward Kennedy: We've lost a great leader with a common touch

Published Oct. 26, 2002 KENN26

Sen. Paul Wellstone had an intense passion and enormous ability to reach out, touch, and improve the lives of the people he served so brilliantly.

Our desks are located side-by-side on the Senate floor. But in every great battle for justice in the United States Senate, Paul was far more than a seat-mate and constant companion. He was an extraordinary inspiration to me and to so many in the Senate as he willingly gave voice to the voiceless, and tirelessly gave strength to the powerless -- in Minnesota and across America.

Paul Wellstone never gave up. For Paul, when it came to matters of basic justice, there was no such thing as a hopeless cause. His energy, compassion, integrity, intellect and ability breathed life into so many of the neglected issues of our day, from mental health to job safety, special education, fairness for family farmers and human rights abroad. He challenged us all to do better.

Sen. Wellstone did his homework. He knew the facts, but he also knew the reality of everyday life for average Americans. When the Senate debated education policy, Paul knew the national arguments. But we all knew that Paul had spent more time visiting the public schools in his state than any other senator. He knew the challenges first-hand because he had taken the time to listen to parents, teachers and schoolchildren, so that he could be their voice in Washington.

We have lost a great leader with a common touch. And I'll miss him very much.

-- Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is a U.S. senator.

startribune.com