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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (108942)	7/30/2003 7:52:37 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<And then Al Qaida tested it in New York and Washington, and found it had some unexpected drawbacks -g-ng-> What drawbacks? From the viewpoint of Al Queda, things are working out exactly as planned. According to the how-to manuals written by Mao, Ho, and Che', the American response is exactly what the guerrillas want it to be: 1. the guerrillas attack a soft target, using surprise. 2. the anti-guerrilla forces respond with a massive amount of poorly-aimed fire-power. 3. large numbers of civilians on the battlefield, move from the category of "neutral, just leave me out of it" to "I hate America; they won't leave me out of it; I have to choose sides". Again, see the trend in Pew poll results, for how counter-productive America's response has been, so far. 4. repeat steps 1-3 above. With each repetition of the cycle, the guerrilla base of support among the civilians increases, and the area of guerrilla Safe Havens increases. You think we are winning the War, because we hold Kabul and Baghdad and Jenin and Gaza? In the Vietnam War, we held every provincial capital in S. Vietnam, right up to a few weeks before Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City, that is) fell. __________________________________________________________ BTW, I am describing the world as it is, not as I would like it to be. What I'd like, what I would consider civilized and legitimate, would be: 1. All conflicts are settled by peaceful negotiation using previously-agreed-upon rules and enforcement methods. Those rules create a level playing field, where the Strong don't always get to make and use the rules to their advantage. 2. In the event no peaceful method of conflict resolution is available, then Ghandian non-cooperation resistance methods are used. But the world as it is, is more than 2 standard deviations away from the world I would like. I consider almost every method currently in use, for conflict resolution among nations, to be illegitimate. The world has yet to move beyond MightMakesRight. But it will, or die trying.