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: JohnM who wrote (64442)	1/5/2003 12:55:06 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

arrogance of this set of presidential couch sitters, suggests that hubris Arrogance and hubris, eh? Well, lets hope, for your sake, that the Giants show some arrogance today. Looks like our next deadline is January 27th. Blix will not announce anything major on Iraq. Bush will declare a "Material Breach" and tell the UN he wants to attack Iraq. The Military will say that they have to go in in February, they cannot wait any longer. The UN will probably refuse to pass a second resolution. So what will happen? Bush, once he is set on a course, will continue it. Saddam will either have to get out or we will attack. There is no way Bush will leave Saddam in charge there.

To: JohnM who wrote (64442)	1/5/2003 1:43:43 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If it was possible, as recently as the end of the last century, to have a serious debate as to whether the US is/was an imperial power, it is no longer so. The counter argument, built out of US government statements, that it was not so, are now gone. We are and Ignatieff is right to write now about the consequences. The argument that America is imperialist is still incorrect. America is the most powerful country and culture in a highly integrate world. Like any power, America is Machiavellian but that is not that same as imperial. Ignatieff is one of the few who argue American imperialism who bothers to get the big picture correct. His conclusion is wrong or, at a minimum, lazy. Paul

To: JohnM who wrote (64442)	1/5/2003 4:56:00 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

it strikes me he writes a good bit like Ajami: good lines, nice use of metaphor, a striking insight here and there, but not a sustained argument. interesting comment. me, I found little new or particularly interesting in the Ignatieff piece--not because I disagreed with it much, but because I thought much of what he said struck me as pretty commonplace by now. But that may be because I read such a god-awful amount of stuff on this subject that it takes a lot to make me sit up and pay attention. Also, I think that the bulk of current American foreign policy activism is quite predictable if one takes three things into account--the rise in relative power that has occurred over the last decade, the basic nature of American political ideals, and the catalyzing impact of 9/11. So I personally think that the supposed novelty or importance of the discussion or thought or what have you that has taken place over the last year and change--including the much ballyhooed National Security Strategy--is vastly overplayed. IMHO, that is, it's all been superstructural hot air, driven primarily by changes in the material base and the triggering effects of contingent historical events. That's why I personally would start discussions of contemporary American foreign policy with the Wohlforth & Brooks piece from the July/Aug Foreign Affairs and the Kagan piece from the June/July Policy Review. I haven't yet seen anything really interesting on the larger or general questions since then. tb@yawn.com PS anybody really interested in following what the big-league debate over American grand strategy in the post-Cold-War era has been should check out this collection, which contains many of the "greatest hits" of that discussion: foreignaffairs.org

To: JohnM who wrote (64442)	1/6/2003 1:50:29 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

2. The quote from Gibbon which has been used a great deal lately, to the effect of the consequences of overextending an empire. Given that presumed dynamics, coupled with the clearly demonstrated arrogance of this set of presidential couch sitters, suggests that hubris is still in store for the US and there will be suffering because of it. Remember the position of this Administration coming into office, and reconsider your statement, John. 911 exposed the extent of dangers which had been long brewing, and long ignored. In the face of those threats, with no time to assuage those threats by addressing their root causes, the only course is to do our best to decapitate the beast and achieve short term victory. With short term victory and the grave threats pushed back to arm's length, we have time to assess and resolve the issues at the root. You don't ignore the thief putting a gun to your head in order to deliver a sermon about the root causes of thievery to the choir. Reacting to life-threatening danger is not hubris. And simpering about how much they hate us while not acting to counter the danger is not prudent. Derek