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: JohnM who wrote (111176)	8/13/2003 1:52:45 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi JohnM; Re: "I would hope that with this kind of post you will not be with us much longer, chuck. The worst kind of stereotype." While it is (one of) the worst kind of stereotype, it is nevertheless an important aspect of our foreign policy. I bet you that if you got Rumsfeld a bit shit-faced he'd say the same thing. Remeber all the commentary about "cheese eating surrender monkeys"? The fact is that humans naturally form groups, and those groups tend to ascribe negative characteristics to each other. While this is only rarely obvious in peacetime international relations, it is omnipresent in wartime propaganda, and for all kinds of governments. Humans are universally prejudiced. As such, this needs to be brought into the open and discussed as a "rational" part of our foreign policy. Since prejudice is the natural state of mankind, it's fairly hopeless to argue with people about these kinds of facts. You've probably already had these discussions in your private life and have noticed that you never convinced a damn one of them of your point. But there is another, more important, issue that should dominate your arguments now, and that is the war in Iraq. People are dying, our country's foreign policy is in shambles, and the war on terror is making regress. With that background, you should consider embracing your debate opponents views. If the Arabs truly are unteachable, then why the hell are we trying to nation build? -- Carl

To: JohnM who wrote (111176)	8/13/2003 10:54:00 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Saddam and the Bomb: More Evidence He Wasn't Trying for One Message 19202775 <<...On every piece of evidence in the U.S. indictment of Iraq, the story is the same: With a weak case on the most powerful argument for war -- preventing Saddam Hussein from going nuclear -- the Bush administration exaggerated and twisted information, and frequently just made stuff up. In the antiwar camp, one of the most popular sayings is, "Bush lied, soldiers died." That's strong stuff, but there's more than a suggestion that it's true. When the Senate Intelligence Committee returns from its August recess and delves into these questions, it should strive hard to expose and make public the complete truth. The president's party controls the Senate and will likely try to limit the investigation. But senators have a higher calling than to party; it's to the American people whose sons and daughters are paying the price for the invasion of Iraq...>>