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: Dayuhan who wrote (69003)	1/26/2003 11:16:39 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Steven, The description of our policies as “the right thing” assumes that we are serving some higher moral imperative, rather than our own perception of our own interests. This is both stupid and dangerous. What we want is not “the right thing”. What we want is what we want. As I read it, Murphy is critiquing the argument that the UN has some sort of moral authority. I don't see him arguing that America has a handle on the 'right thing'. The argument that Bush should wait for the superior judgement of the UN is simply silly. There is a long hard job ahead in Iraq. Now is a good time to find out who is reliable and who is not. If nothing else, it is good to know everybody's price. Paul

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69003)	1/27/2003 12:38:10 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Murphy omits the most compelling reasons for seeking a multilateral umbrella for military action against Iraq. One can have allies without UN Security Council approval, and vice-versa I might add. It is obvious that we need allies. It is not obvious that we need the moral 'imprimatur' of the UNSC. If unilateral action compromises our relations with countries whose cooperation we need in the war on terrorism, we may do ourselves more harm than good That's true. But the opposite is also true - if we prove irresolute enough to be rolled by bluff and diplomatic theatre, we will do ourselves harm for sure. The terrorists will have more money, more recruits, and more influence It's possible. But they haven't been lacking for any of these so far, and have gotten good mileage out of the "spiderweb society" theory; that the West is decadent and won't fight if pushed. The description of our policies as “the right thing” assumes that we are serving some higher moral imperative, rather than our own perception of our own interests. This is both stupid and dangerous. What we want is not “the right thing”. What we want is what we want. I don't think you are quite getting the tenor of the argument here, Steven. The neocons who argue that we must do "the right thing" are not arguing that we alone act for altruism (at least, most don't). Rather, they think that "the best defense is offense" and that acting aggressively against both Saddam and the other terrorist-supporting states is in the best interests of both America and Europe, and the Europeans are being have their heads in the sand when they don't see it the same way.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (69003)	1/27/2003 2:17:14 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

res-Military action against Iraq will increase popular support for terrorist movements in the Middle East. The terrorists will have more money, more recruits, and more influence. I disagree Steven, as we one-by-one take out the places where terrorists train, hide, obtain weapons, and have government support systems, they will have less support, and be less influential, not more. We cannot change their motivation to attack America, what we can do is create the environment around which their internal motivation to change becomes more likely to occur. People who are motivated to fly aircraft into buildings will understand very little besides raw power. As we demonstrate we can reach them anywhere, at anytime, they will begin to fragment and decay. The appeasement policies of the past, where we talked tough, but did little besides bomb pill factories in the desert, created the environment in which terrorists networks grew more embolden, more adventuresome, and more likely to strike. When a Predator remote controlled aircraft secretly flies overhead and launches hellfire missiles killing a band of terrorists planning their next mission, we are safer, not more vulnerable. As the word spreads that America intends to work with our allies around the globe incinerating these murderers, the next batch of recruits will be reluctant to join, out of fear of becoming the next burning match. Attacking Afghanistan and virtually destroying the Taliban network of terrorists cells there, while simultaneously instilling a form of representative government. Has made us more safe as a nation, not less. The same will be true if we oust Saddam and end his reign of terror. The only thing worse than a hidden terrorist network, is one operating in the open with clandestine government support systems giving them financial, as well as infrastructure support. This charade must end. We should watch the flow of money from these clandestine centers very closely. We should watch the transfer of weapons systems closely, and we should watch where they're training the next batch of assassins. That's why Bush was right to paint a clear moral picture to our enemies and friends. "You are either with us or against us in this fight against terrorists". They are the enemy to freedom, progress, and civilization. Yes, the peace effort, after war, will be a difficult thing to do "right". But, there is so much to gain by the effort, and if done intelligently, so little to lose.