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: SirRealist who wrote (56654)	11/12/2002 1:56:22 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

The more that substantial minority voice gets drowned out on this thread, the more likely the perception will grow that this is a cheerleader squad, instead of a debate forum. I'll be sorry if you stay away SR. Who is being chased off? I think the posters here welcome opposing views to debate - but those holding opposing views will be expected to debate, to bring up evidence for their views and to address opposing points, to argue them out even though neither side is likely to persuade the other. Debate is great, bring it on. We just have to avoid name-calling or its mirror twin, unjustified accusations of name-calling.

To: SirRealist who wrote (56654)	11/12/2002 2:15:26 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

SR, I regret that we are not hearing much from the left anymore, but I don't think that is the fault of the present posters on the thread. I don't believe we were trying to run anybody off, just doing our normal cut and thrust of discussing the issues. I really think the demise of the left here is the natural result of the outcome of the elections. It was a real blow to some of our regulars. I have made a point to try to post items about it to CBs thread, not here, to keep the noise down, but we still don't see many Liberal Posters.

To: SirRealist who wrote (56654)	11/12/2002 2:44:22 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The interview with Hertsgaard was interesting. I also agree that the United States, because of its enormous power, is uniquely situated to do something about the Iraqi threat, but it's at this point that we have to be careful. The way that Bush is doing it is going to make it worse. Instead of the unilateral approach, you've got to have the world's cooperation in dealing with the problem of Hussein. The idea that because we have the power, we have the responsibility to take him out -- I don't buy that. He is a world problem, and we have to get the world to deal with him collectively. That does not mean that the U.S. coerces everyone on the U.N. Security Council into doing what we want by saying that we're going to do it anyway. There's a fine line between having this responsibility and deciding it's OK if we act unilaterally. This sounds great in theory but bumps up against reality. IMO, in reality, without "cowboy" Bush waving his six-guns and saying, the posse is moving out with or without you boys, the UN's response to Bush would have been the same as its response to Clinton: Forget about it. The UN is not an organization that has been behaving responsibly (if it had, it would have declared Saddam in "material breach" in 1998), with regard to Iraq or nearly anything else. With Bosnia it was the same. Europe said, keep out, this is our territory, and then wrung its hands for years while Sarajevo was destroyed. Either America does it, or nobody does it. The real problem is that Europe has been under American protection for too long. Europe is dependent and resentful of it. We have evolved into the dysfunctional relationship of an adolescent child and a parent, with the child saying, I am a grownup, you must respect me properly, and the parent answering, Fine, so are you willing to pay for your own apartment? or defense, as the case may be.