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 (75837)	2/20/2003 10:39:59 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It was only the first meeting. They haven't picked Officers or developed a a Mission Statement yet. All they know is that they don't like what they are hearing. They want more information. What's the Plan? Timetable? Cost? THe way you were talking last summer: "This will be quick." We thought it would be over by now. Business has stopped. Business has stopped. Business has stopped. Rascal@:>).com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75837)	2/20/2003 11:22:40 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

John, could you explain in a single sentence the position of the non-radical left on the Afghan war in October 2001? As I recall, they had no coherent policy, leaving the opposition to Chomskyites and other blame-America-firsters. I don't know how numerous this crowd is, but they sure are noisy. They are also good at organizing demonstrations, so they get their message out. In effect they use the masses of less-radical folk as an amplifier. No single sentences here. I gather the issue you wish to address with this paragraph is the relation between folk like Chomsky and other critics of the Bush administration's tactics in Afghanistan. I don't know, Nadine, since you didn't supply any names. It would help if you did. My own impression, at the level of generality you are working, is that the Afghanistan attack was almost universally supported, left, right, middle. Lots of squabbling over means--McCain was prime among them. But little if any squabbling over ends. I don't doubt there were American critics of the ends. Certainly Chomsky was among them. No doubt there were others. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of those were on the right. Just as with Iraq right now, some of the critics--Novak and Buchanan--are long time members of the right. The last couple of sentences imply that Saturday's demonstrators are manipulated. I doubt that. Conspiracy theory doesn't work well when you get this level of turnout. In the US and overseas. I've thought a bit about my first reply and have changed my mind, slightly. There is a different way to put it. Large public demonstrations are about political ends, not means. Give the vote to women; get out of Vietnam; etc. Those are political ends. Demonstrations rarely get into the question of means. However, there is an interesting convergence of means and ends this time. Several reporters noted that a great many demonstrators in both European cities and the US considered doing something about Saddam a worthy end; just didn't trust the way the Bush folk were going about it. It's definitely striking just how quickly the Bush folk converted all the favorable positioning for their foreign policy which came from 9-11, to something that is perceived so negatively.