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 (84939)	3/22/2003 1:37:56 PM
From: w0z	Respond to of 281500

"Today, we could be just as wrong amidst this war as we were amidst that one. Or we could be entering the age of decapitating wars, in which the United States can change evil regimes without widespread loss of life. Either way, the politics of warfare is being transformed, and someday we are going to sit back and marvel that we didn't pay more attention to the political considerations embedded in the conduct of this war itself." One thing seems clear to me, what we have been doing (or more realistically not doing) the past several years has yielded Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Maybe it's time we try something "out of the box" of conventional wisdom. Surely it cannot be a bigger failure than recent history.

To: paul_philp who wrote (84939)	3/22/2003 2:37:47 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

All warfare is based on deception. -- Sun Tzu 430 BC This is a very important principle to keep in mind when reading the news. The best protection against this active deception is to read the news from all sides and contrast them with the interests of each side to come to your own decision. > no mass riots on the Arab street, no coup in Pakistan or Jordan If you know people there, I suggest you call them and ask for the why? Especially since the public opinion there is a lot more negative of US than in the west. So rather than taking it for granted like the author is doing here, you should wonder if this is normal. All the opposition leaders are either in jail, under house arrest, or have had visits from the police as a reminder of what not to do. That means an increase of pressure by the already repressive regimes of the region. Expect a delayed reaction. BTW, despite all efforts, there have been some demonstrations (10,000 in Cairo, others here and there). But for now the pressure is keeping a lid on it. > "Brace yourself for a round of I-told-you-sos from Iraq hawks," Robert Wright writes in Slate. Brace yourself for a much worse delayed reaction. All in all I'd rather see riots in Cairo as release for public discontent than underground movements. > Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz might be proven right. Wolfowitz has merits and given the right implementation and some moderation, he may be proven right. Rumsfeld cannot be proven right because there is no substance to him to begin with. > feeling reassured, almost against their will, by the successful projection of American power Such feelings are immaterial. The "power" has been "projected" towards the Iraqi regime. Terrorists do not ask permission from their governments. It doesn't matter who we put in power in those countries. The only solution is establishing mutual trust and mutual respect. That will diminish the support base for the terrorist groups. Consider that despite having our own guys in Kabul and Islamabad, Osama remains at large. Given the relative purchasing power, we have put a $25,000,000,000 prize for just telling us where he is. Yet the people are not handing him over. I doubt Bush would have been around if the situation was reversed. > Now, everybody seems to assume, it isn't enough just to beat the enemy; you have to beat them without becoming unpopular amongst them. There is nothing new here. This has always been the case when the winning party has wanted to enjoy fruits of his victory. How else do you expect to deal with the post war Iraq, by waging another war every 20 years? > we could be entering the age of decapitating wars, in which the United States can change evil regimes without widespread loss of life When you can explain to me how Saddam's regime and not the broader issues was a significant clear and present danger to US, then I will agree that removing him solves our problems. Otherwise, we should note that majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from countries whose regimes are most obedient to US demands. ST

To: paul_philp who wrote (84939)	3/22/2003 3:35:09 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Question for David Brooks re The Phony Debate – are you blind? You have to beat them without making yourself more unpopular with the world.. This is exactly right and it is what is wrong with this Admin, and here is why. They think that fear is fun because with it a lot can be done in a short space of time. What they don’t see or don’t seem to care about, is that when things are done with Fear they can very easily and super quickly become undone, for the simple reason that fear confers neither legitimacy, nor the right kind of long lasting respect, which is what the government of a Democracy is supposed to be about. It is an unethical position and the only thing that saves their ass is that they are 'protecting’ America, which is a very large writ, however ill-conceived their rationalization. They have established a meta context beneath which people are tearing each other apart. It’s what happens when you’re either with us or against us, and I lay the blame for this squarely on this administration, who, save for the modicum of self restraint that everybody is supposed to have, are supposed to look after us. I never heard of John Boyd before learning of him here and I look forward to reading his stuff, but as LindyBill says, “if we were fighting this war the way he wanted, it would already be over”, I get the feeling that for once LB would be right, <g> if war is the pursuit of diplomacy by other means, what’s clear is that this Admin is following Boyd a little too closely. Boyd's often self-defeating abrasiveness and the neglect and mistreatment of his long-suffering wife and children Message 18332510 Brooks - This is some vague but mighty shift inexpectations. And about this too there has been relatively little discussion. rubbish.