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: paul_philp who wrote (80191)	3/7/2003 5:12:54 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<calling the US strategy Unilateralism a fantasy. It ignores so many counter-facts> Care to list them? List examples where this Administration has acted on the basis of consensus. There aren't any. You may not like the word, but it is a word you can find in quotations of all the many, many foreign leaders describing why they won't support the U.S. It's a word you are going to be hearing a lot. <The UN is failed institution> For the Hawks, the purpose of the UN is to legitimize US action. The US decides, all alone, what it is going to do, and then the UN is supposed to say, "the world blesses this action". Sort of like how Mussolini got the Pope to bless his tanks, before he sent them to conquer Ethiopia. (No, I'm, not calling Bush a fascist) And, yes, the UN is failing the Hawks. Mainly because no other nation in the world thinks that is the purpose of the UN. <There will be new alliances with many of these countries, as there will be new global institutions and structures. The new multi-lateralism will be based on the current world> Unfortunately, the "new multilateralism" emerging, is a French-German-Chinese-Russian coalition to Contain and Deter the U.S. I'm going to make another analogy: 200 years ago, the French tried to spread their (modified) Revolution throughout the world, and the main tool they used was their bayonets and artillery. They had a General who was better than the next 20 Generals on the planet combined, and they had an army that, battle after battle, year after year, swept the competition from the field. And the Napoleonic Code followed the bayonets, all over the world. But it all came to a bad end, because Napolean didn't understand the limits of bayonets in spreading memes. And neither does Bush. And here, I am comparing Bush to Napolean.