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: frankw1900 who wrote (94773)	4/19/2003 4:54:19 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

I think Shawcross's article posted yesterday was much better. I'll say. I hadn't read it. Thanks for reposting it. Lind's article was a whiny left-wing mess. It would be believed at an anti-war rally, but that's about it. Shawcross lays out exactly what has gone on, and what is planned, and why. You made not like it, but you understand the Bush and the Admin after reading it.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (94773)	4/19/2003 6:12:52 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re Shawcross article: Am greatly encouraged to see some of the background as to why the US has developed the "tough" policies of today, since it tells me the US is definitely going to make certain the Iraq does not elect a new tyrant to replace the old one, and that democratic values (humane treatment, peoples voice, checks and balances)) will be incorporated in the new regime even if is is not called a "democracy" With modern education and more experience, there must be scholars in Iraq who can propose a constitution as workable as our own. Finding an equivalent George Washington would be quite a reach, since there may be no one left who has had power or respect other than religious leaders. Washington had power over slaves, but was aware that power entails responsibilities to take care of them, as a company takes care of its employees. With Saddam in power, responsibility meant brutalizing underlings, not taking care of them. The Kurds seem to have done a much better job of taking care of their own than those in other areas, but they seem to get little respect from others. So despite the cries for the US to get out of town, its not going to happen soon.And why is every country in Europe making such a fuss over Iraq, when citizens are even more oppressed in other Nations.?Oil contracts. Sig

To: frankw1900 who wrote (94773)	4/19/2003 9:45:01 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Re: Lind's article. I think Shawcross's article posted yesterday was much better. Well, hello, Frank. Been some time since we talked with one another here. I remember our Wallerstein conversations. Enjoyed them. As for Shawcross, I assume this is the same Shawcross who wrote the book on Cambodia, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia. Do you know? If so, one minor point. The Shawcross who wrote the Sideshow book knew how to tell a story; this Shawcross seems to me to offer a series of points with no connection between them, save their topic: US Iraqi policy. Once I saw the name I hoped to see a connected argument but it's rather a series of interesting points whose only connection is support for Bush and Blair. Which is fine. As for the comparison with Lind, they strike me as different rather than comparable. Let me see if I can make that point clearer. Once I had read, say, a third of the way through Shawcross, I felt I could write the remainder. Not only were the points he chose to make familiar, but the way he argued them was. He was predictable. A Bush supporter on the war. Not quite hagiography but certainly trending in that direction. That means I found, perhaps, 10% interesting. The rest politically wrong. A definite point of view; just wrong. Lind is, of course, the opposite. Also, familiar points, familiar arguments, with about 15 to 20% interestingly different for me. Again, a definite point of view with which I agree, oh, maybe over half of it. But, in defense of Lind, he is not so much comparable to Shawcross as to The Weekly Standard and The National Review writers. These are voices I think we all need to hear. They represent voices in the political debate; they represent points of view that help us think through our own.