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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75419)	2/19/2003 12:42:15 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An American war against Iraq, even if it ended in victory, is liable to heighten the sense of affront, humiliation, hatred and desire for vengeance that much of the world feels toward the United States. It threatens to arouse a wave of fanaticism with the power to undermine the very existence of moderate governments in the Middle East and beyond. This pending war is already splitting the alliance of democratic states and cracking the ramshackle edifice of the United Nations and its institutions. Ultimately, this will benefit only the violent and fanatical forces menacing the peace of the world. I have read enough to convince me that this argument is not totally true. The American campaign in Iraq will provide the Islamists with some real propaganda material for the 'Arab street'. However, for the real warriors, I think it will increase their fear and respect for America. They think the West is fat, happy and incapable of fighting back (the UNSC debacle feeds that belief) and a US military win on their front door will make the warriors think differently. Paul

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75419)	2/19/2003 2:21:35 AM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

Andrew Sullivan disagrees with me - IS CHIRAC BUSH'S FAULT? Tom Friedman seems to think so. I wish I thought that the visceral hostility of Chirac and Schroder were a function of George Bush's bad diplomacy. But I fear their positions would be the same whatever president was in power, if he were trying to accomplish the magnitude of what Bush is aiming for in the war on terror. Bush's rapport with Blair, an ideological opponent, and his relationship with Putin suggests no lack of diplomatic grace in the White House. And does Friedman think Colin Powell's ceaseless efforts around the globe were window-dressing? In truth, the positions of France and Germany have as much to do with their own precarious positions within Europe as they do with the policies of the United States. For a while now, I have harped on the importance of EU politics for American foreign policy - and largely been ignored. It seemed so boring. It may seem less boring now. There is a huge struggle going on in Europe between those who want to forge an anti-American socialist super-state and those who want to unite Europe around principles of nation-states, a trans-Atlantic bond and free trade. Imagine in the current crisis if Britain's foreign policy were subservient to Brussels and you get an idea of the stakes.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75419)	2/19/2003 3:59:48 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What on Earth is OZ thinking of? The protesters have it wrong: this war campaign does not emanate from oil lust or from colonialist appetite. It emanates primarily from a simplistic rectitude that aspires to uproot evil by force. But the evil of Saddam Hussein's regime, like the evil of Osama bin Laden, is deeply and extensively rooted in vast expanses of poverty, despair and humiliation. The hell! Saddam's is rooted in secret police, torture and terror. bin Laden's is rooted also in tyranny that creates the poverty, despair and humiliation. The Bush bunch have a point, if they really think the way OZ says they do. Perhaps it is even more deeply rooted in the terrible, raging envy that America has aroused for many years ? not only in countries of the third world, but also in the broad boulevards of European society. What reason have European peaceniks have to envy the US? The third worlders are mad at the US because it has behaved so capriciously, from their point of view. "The US is always on the side of the dictators." Is OZ a socialist?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75419)	2/19/2003 5:25:03 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

a wave of emotional hostility toward Israel. This guy has a lot of wrong answers, IMO, but this one is right. Elliott mentioned tonight that when you ask Europeans for the biggest problem between Europe and America, "Israel" is always the answer. Totally different outlook. The Euros want us to move on Israel/Pal now, and are pissed that we won't even talk about it until Iraq is finished. As the Rose panel went over, the only people with leverage on the Pals are the Euros, and they refuse to use it. Judt admitted that Europe's refusal to use their financial leverage at the time of the Clinton negotiations was a major error.