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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 3:22:41 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Again, this has close parallels with fighting Islamism: they have to be presented, in a convincing and personal way, with a better alternative.<< I don't think you really understand the nature of Islamism. It's not a pathology. What you are suggesting makes as much sense as presenting Mormons, in a convincing and personal way, with a better alternative to the Book of Mormon. Or convincing Catholics, in a convincing and personal way, with a better alternative to the Pope.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 3:35:40 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

Jacob, I agree with you 100% on the War on Drugs. I also think that 'War on Terrorism' is as poor a metaphor as 'War on Drugs'. I also agree that standard tactics and strategies aren't going to get the job done. However, I disagree with you that attacking Iraq is a mistake. Letting Iraq pull our chain for 12 years only convincing our enemies that we are weak. I also disagree that War is the only tactic being used - other tactics neccisarily operate out of view of the media. Iran will be the first true test. The country is ripe for a revolution and the people who want change are hungry for demoratic reforms and improved prosperity. If the US cannot manage to support there ambitions so that they succeed without dropping bombs, I will become worried. I also think we are seeing other Arab regimes change their behaviour because of the stance the US is taking towards Iraq. Small steps to be sure but still they are steps. I think the House of Saud will think twice about funding AQ while the US has 150,000 troops on the border. Where your cynicism shows is your suggested approaches to the Israeli/Palestine conflict. As suggested by you I am sure that approach would do nothing but cause a civil war in Isreal. Remember, the right killed Rabin for Oslo, so going further than Oslo seems like a non-starter. Paul

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 3:45:49 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As a physician working many years in communities with bad drug abuse problems, I have been a conscious Libertarian since about 1973, and have fought the "Good Fight" for a change in the laws on Drugs. I don't even read the Libertarian articles on Drugs anymore. The people in this country will not vote for it. They are convinced the way we are going is right. You keep pushing the "Drug War" as the same as the "Terrorist war." Apples and Oranges, IMO.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 8:28:35 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Thank you for taking the time to post a logical, focused magnifying glass on The "Wars" on Drugs and Terrorism. And thank you for the work you have done. Rascal@ lesscynicalnow.com

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 8:42:39 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, in your work with drug users you must have come across psychopaths. Their character antedates their addiction. Hussein is a psychopath. He doesn't respond to carrots like an ordinary person. Carrots are for him a sign of your weakness and to be taken advantage of. Therapy model will not work with Hussein. He is not a pain wracked addict. Mirroring model (which only usually mirrors the western diplomat) won't work if one is not mirroring back Hussein to himself. That is what the US forces surrounding Iraq are doing. ................................... C) Anyone who thinks they are morally superior to a 15-year-old prostitute who just gave birth to a twitching cocaine baby, is too arrogant to be any use as a counselor, and shouldn't be involved in planning or running any program. Communication shuts down (and any chance of changing behavior ends) as soon as a drug-user senses the contempt and condescension of non-drug-users. (This, BTW, is exactly the attitude Americans typically show toward Muslim Fundamentalists, with the exact same results). The parallel of the incompetent counselor and the addict and of the ordinary American and the Muslim fundamentalist is not quite on. Most Muslim fundamentalists are no different than Christian ones - they get on with their lives, are not particularly political - they are unexceptional folk. There is a minority who are troublesome and even dangerous. The al Qaeda type is far more likely to patronize the American. He is in the grip of a view which does not admit any other. He does not believe he is just privileged, he believes he is superior to the infidel - due to his beliefs - and believes it is his right to dispose of the American as he sees fit. Futhermore, the emotions driving and melding him to his beliefs are usually anger and hatred. Until something happens to dissipate the anger and hatred what we see as dialogue will not bring results because there is no room for another view. Normally what dissipates those emotions is discouragement - he must be defeated. Defeat may happen in many ways - in battle, through lack of support, sudden view of baseness of leadership, ill health, etc - but defeat must come to him. Then there is room for another view and different behaviour. There are parallels here to drug addiction but the manner in which the fanatic gets to his singular view is different. Unfortunately, the "rush" is in feeling triumphant and this is usually attained through violence of some kind: being violent or seeing violence done in his name - see Taliban, 9/11, etc - or in controlling the lives and thoughts of others - see Taliban, Iranian theocracy, etc. I over simplify but I do think I have the correct basic descriptions. Some effective solutions don't sit well with us: terrorizing the terrorist can work. Removing his support can work. Utter defeat can work. Doubt can work if doubt creating conditions are maintained long enough. Removing the conditions allowing successful indoctrination can work. Replacing those conditons with ones impeding indoctrination and reindoctrination is best. I agree "War on Terrorism" is a stupid formulation. Almost any other would be better. ............................... Please. Don't confuse Hussein with some defeated addict or with an islamist terrorist. The psychology is not the same.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 8:59:11 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<1. legalize all (yes, all) drugs of abuse. Most policemen I've talked to agree with me (off the record). > Good post Jacob. This is the crux <drug users are enmeshed in a Drug Culture, a Drug Community, and they will slide back into drug use, unless they live in an UnDrug Community that constantly reinforces an UnDrug Culture. > My inexpert opinion is that it's cool stuff to use drugs. Coffee has taken off in Latteland [nee Auckland] over the past decade or two. NZ used to be a tea culture. American coffee culture has come in, overlaid with fancy pants variations on the theme - coffee menus are as long as the food menus now. When dope was legal, hardly anyone used it. It became really cool to be dopey in the 1960s. The penalties weren't a big deal and gave it hipness. Now, Dak is the deal! Huge crops are grown. Police, courts and prisons are wasting time on it. Criminals are thieving to pay for it. It's a huge industry in NZ. Legalize the whole lot and take the wind out of its sails. When people used to go to pot, they were looked down on as failures. It wasn't cool to be dopey. Now, in some cultures, it is part of the wallpaper and will stay that way because it's the cashflow driver. Money talks! While the money flows, the culture will thrive. Now we have the dopey United Nations going on about legalization in Europe. How absurd is that? nzherald.co.nz We have countries around the world at war or about to go to war and they are worrying about a subculture based on dope which hurts only the person sucking it in [or eating it in muffins in coffeehouses in Holland]. All the people in the UN who mention dope, or other words meaning the same thing, should be fired and told to get a real job. As Boris Yeltsin said, "Presidents don't do chickens" and the UN should not do dope. Same thing with cocaine. It's the money talking! The money creates a culture. Coca Cola used to contain cocaine or coca bean extract or something. There's a huge money flow in the Coca Cola culture and the coke culture and while money flows, the culture will exist. Legalize the stuff and the cash flow will crash and so will the culture and the coolness level. Hip dudes won't want to be seen dead with dope or coke filling their head. Sure, the arty cultures short of money will continue to use drugs - as they always did - to set themselves apart from the normal bourgeois types. I have wondered before whether opium imports to the USA aren't an excellent vector for transmission of NUKES!! Buried inside a stack of bags of cocaine, which would act as decoy and allow bribed customs people to allow it in - they'd never allow in a nuke, even with payment, but opium is okay for suitable payment. The main, overall factor in the whole thing is self-determination. States are suffocating individuals. Drugs are a way of being independent in a non-violent way. Free will matters to people. Modern societies are smothering nanny-states, ordering every last detail of our lives including what we are allowed to ingest. No wonder people become defiant and join the anti-establishment drug culture. I'm tempted to do it myself. Leave people alone to run their lives how they want to. If they want to suck garden rubbish, or drink their own urine, leave them alone! Mqurice PS: The USA is the problem here because they are driving the War on Drugs. They should forget about it.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (77829)	2/26/2003 9:57:16 PM
From: Wildstar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

5. anti-drug programs that work by decreasing the demand for drugs. 6. Start by funding a wide variety of different programs, and insist that every program track results. One of the frustrating aspects currently, is that a lot of money is spent on programs, year after year, and nobody has any idea which programs work, because follow-up and results-tracking are not done. 7. Steadily prune the programs that don't work, and expand the programs that do. A Darwinian competition among programs. You realize that there hasn't been a program in the history of the govt of the United States that does this right? The feedback loops and constant evolution toward successful solutions is a feature of the market, not govt. Once a govt social program is created, no matter how noble the intentions or how well-thought out the plan, the primary mission becomes self-perpetuation.