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 (112831)	8/26/2003 2:09:24 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"To paraphrase a infamous criminal, make them [those who don't want a win-win situation] an offer they can't refuse. Mugabbe, Arafat, any number of tyrants, aren't going to go for early retirement and golden years on the Riviera. What then?" Since the experiment has not been done neither you nor I can predict what would happen. "The only "axiom" conservatives - "neo" or otherwise - have, if they are really conservatives, and not phonies like Pat Buchanan, is that the world is contingent and that the further you get from the present, the less defined is our knowlege and certainty." Doesn't sound like an axiom that is particularly conservative. I hope you're not saying that non-conservatives(in your sense of the word) believe that the world is not contingent and the further you get from the present, the more defined is our knowledge and certainty. As to checks and balances I have posted that I believe that Executive Order 13303 is an example of a lack of checks and balances. "You seem to think the conservatives in Washington are confident of the outcome in Iraq. " There was no intent to do give that impression. But certainly prior to the war the neo-conservatives gave the impression that there were WMDs which could be fired within 45 minutes and that Al-Qaeda was connected to Iraq/Saddam. More important, no one ever said that the war would be protracted. So that indirectly says that the conservatives were confident of the outcome. As to Rumsfeld's comments on the uncertainty of the outcome of the Iraq war I would appreciate a source. 9/11 didn't change the neo-conservative view of things. Iraq was probably on the agenda from day 1 of Bush's presidency. Certainly on day 1 after 9/11. Gore would have had to act as Bush did after 9/11. Whether he would have acted against Iraq is another question. "The preferred conservative foreign policy is 'passive' - they don't want to make waves: who knows what those might do when they wash up on foreign shores? But this fall back stance was shown untenable in these times by 9/11 events. Their present ME policy frightens almost every Washington conservative, including Bush. They only undertook it because they saw less radical alternatives as unworkable." I take it that you mean that almost every Washington conservative is afraid of the ME policy they themselves endorse. I would say they only undertook it because they saw more radical alternatives as unworkable. for example involving the UN. As to understanding the philosophical position of the conservatives I've read Locke, Hobbes, Adam Smith.... I also see the results of various philosophies. One can ask a conservative philosopher what is his/her position on providing cheap aids medicine to Africans. Or Kyoto, or the ICC. Or the IMF and it's effect on 3rd world debt. I'm pretty sure that one would not get the same answers from 2 conservative philosophers(or 2 philosophers of any observance). As to "getting very far with my criticism" I'm satisfied with throwing ideas into the arena and seeing what kind of reaction turns up. I don't expect to "convert" anyone since I'm not a fundamentalist.