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: Ilaine who wrote (90293)	4/5/2003 3:07:22 PM
From: NickSE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What happened all the new attacks we were supposed to see as a result of the Iraq war? New Signs of Terror Not Evident nytimes.com WASHINGTON, April 5 — After Bush administration officials and many American lawmakers predicted that terrorist attacks were nearly inevitable because of the war in Iraq, there has been little evidence that Al Qaeda or other networks are preparing to strike against the United States, senior government officials say.....

To: Ilaine who wrote (90293)	4/5/2003 3:10:25 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> The point is that just as other nations assisted us, we should assist other nations. Why should we? And no they helped get us started, but did not really push the political development in US. Prove me wrong if you can. Show me how many countries are contributing to our political parties or trade unions. > Your argument appears to be that we deliberately sponsor bastards because we prefer bastards. No we don't particularly want the bastards. We just want somebody who helps us sell goods. If that person happens to be a SOB, then we don't care. Similarly, if there is a less evil person on the rise who may interfere with our market, then we do our best that he will not come to power. The fact that he is a nice guy (or a nicer guy) wins no merits with us. > My argument is that we may make mistakes but our intentions are honorable and consistent with our ideals. If only that was the case. I see nothing of the founding ideals reflected in our foreign policy...see above.

To: Ilaine who wrote (90293)	4/5/2003 3:35:55 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

CB, Have you read Virginia Postrel's The Future and it's Enemies? Here framework might help you understand Sun Tzu and the folks that make similar arguments. Every big move forward in technology and the economy transforms societies, cultures, languages, the nature of families, the definition of tribes and nations, everything. Always has and always will. For example, the modern city evolved in the early days of the industrial revolution as peasants moved from the country to be closer to the factories. During periods of great change, people wail about the 'new way' killing of the 'old way' and there must some 'evil them' out there profiting from all the nasty change. The problem is that culture, society, economies are living ecosystems, always in a state of flux. Flux is the rule of the world, way more powerful than America. America is the target of some people's anger but it is not the source of it. Just as the ideal America of Norman Rockwell never existed, the ideal Islamic world that globalization is killing never existed. You are either fighting for the myth of the future or fighting for the myth of the past. One fight provides hope and prosperity and one fight provides despair, hatred and decline. The real job is engage the people of the middle in their own fight for the future. Paul