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 (81169)	3/11/2003 11:48:30 AM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

Paul, Thank-you for such a candid post. I definitely get what you are saying. Rascale@ ourwall'sfallingnow.com

To: paul_philp who wrote (81169)	3/11/2003 12:09:08 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<I see enough change in thinking from the Bush administration to be warily confident. A successful campaign in Iraq coupled with the UNSC fiasco would shift to balance of power in the administration further from the State Deptartment 'realists' to the Wolfowitz gang and further away from short term narrow self-interest toward long-term broad self-interest. The Wolfowitz gang fully understands that the US won't be secure until the Middle East region is headed in the direction of being successful. 'Democracy in Iraq' is no pie-in-the-sky bumper sticker slogan for the W-gang, it is a centrepiece of their strategy.>>> The 9-11 event proved the status quo was not working- we were aware of growing terrorist threats and actions but were still unable to prevent it. Changes were needed in International cooperation and relations and in internal Institutions Practically everyone hates changes especially when there is no clear way to deal with the threats and that money is involved . It threatens our jobs, our markets, our long term budgets IMO nearly everyone here would agree that changes were needed - faster responses. How do you rapidly implement changes is such ingrained and balky Institutions as the FBI, CIA, INS or the UN ? Somebody has to tell them, implement a new direction, set new goals and stick to them, define them Since everyone will bitch, want more authority and funds, it cannot be done with with any type of citizens consensous. Greenpeace will complain, perfect fodder for the anti-war crowd, the anti-oil drilling crowd, the anti-gun crowd, the "how much will it cost crowd". And Democrats seeking election. I give credit to GWB for the work done to date, a huge success story, a new direction for those so reluctant to change. Thats especially true of the UN - GW has those people up on the step, beginning to think a bit, showing why they must change and work together on how to deal with nuclear proliferation on a timely basis - which may need decisions within hours instead of years. Turning the other cheek to a Terrorist produces one result, you , or your country, are going to die. Sig

To: paul_philp who wrote (81169)	3/11/2003 12:52:59 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

I have big ideological differences with Wolfovitz and Co, but any change from the dumb catch-22 policy setting themes of the past and towards a principle oriented government is a good change. At least this way the validity of an approach can be judged one way or another. The "realist" way just creates constant time bombs for someone else to deal with. When I worked in Bell Northern Research lab, we had a good accountability policy. If you hired someone that later had to be fired, we'd call you back to do it no matter how high you had gone or whether the employee still under your chain of command. If you wrote a program that crashed, even if the crash conditions were discovered years after you wrote it, they'd call you back make you fix it. Changing departments and climbing the ladder did not protect a person against poor decisions. Now if we could somehow implement this policy in Washington, we'd be so much better off.