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 - No Political Rants -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (192)	3/3/2003 1:27:20 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 504

Hello. Congratulations on you new thread. There is certainly no shortage of FADG offshoots, is there?

To: paul_philp who wrote (192)	3/3/2003 1:38:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 504

>>How about a new Department of Democratic Epidemeology?<< The Constitution mandates that the President/Executive is in charge of foreign policy, probably because it did not matter much in 1789, when the Constitution was enacted. Thus, the only branch of the government that spends much time on foreign affairs is the executive, essentially the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and other security agencies, and maybe somebody in the White House to act as liason. The stuff I posted from the Navy War College clearly falls under the "hammer thinks everything is a nail" category. Once the military pacifies an area, it moves on to other nails, and there is no entity charged with picking up the slack and administering the peace. This is in large part due to the isolationist nature of the typical US citizen. And really, it's hard to explain why we should be the world's policeman, just because nobody else is willing to do it, or do it to our satisfaction. We don't take the spoils, so why should we do any more than necessary to make the peace?