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: LindyBill who wrote (73624)	2/13/2003 3:23:54 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

First, we are the ones with the vast power at our disposal who are proposing to rewrite the rules of international relations and start throwing our weight around. That naturally makes others, even our friends, somewhat nervous, and it should be a no-brainer to take such feelings into account, try to soothe them, etc. That's why they call it "diplomacy." The only one in this administration who actually seems to understand that is Powell, which is one reason (quite separate from his substantive positions) why he's the only high-level figure in this administration the rest of the world likes. Remember TR--it's precisely when you're carrying a big stick that you should speak softly. Second, the fact that the French and Germans are being truculent and childish is true but doesn't absolve the Bushies from blame. Again, with great power comes great responsibility--we should be "big" enough to take their shenanigans in stride and simply go about our business, rather than persisting in a petulant flame war. There was a pretty good, if scathing, column on all this today in the FT by Gerard Baker, called "Tartuffe and the shock-jock." It's only available to subscribers, unfortunately, but if someone wanted to post it I'm sure we'd all benefit... tb@maturityisagoodthing.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (73624)	2/13/2003 5:12:19 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

<double cross NATO> There seems to be a widespread feeling, that the Europeans are reneging on their NATO obligations, stabbing the U.S. in the back. A little history: 1. NATO's mandate is explicitly, solely, defensive. It was set up to stop 10,000 Soviet tanks from reaching Paris. That's what W. Europe signed up for. It was never intended, and nobody ever agreed to a mandate that included, any offensive military action of any kind, even in Europe. 2. NATO is (again, explicitly, solely) limited to military activity in Europe. It was never envisioned, there are no obligations, for extra-European war, not even defensive ones. 3. Every nation in NATO agrees to act under American leadership. But only to achieve the goals previously agreed to. If those goals are now going to be changed and expanded, then the new goals must be negotiated, and consensus reached. There is no obligation to automatically follow the U.S., when the U.S. wants to do things far outside the original scope of the alliance.