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 (113009)	8/27/2003 6:07:15 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

Great post, Frank.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (113009)	8/27/2003 6:25:07 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

You cannot run away from the consequences of unilateralism. There is no shortage of countries willing to step in and help clean up the mess in Iraq, but they won't do it so long as US policy is unilateralist. The same was true of the UN before we invaded Iraq -- fancy footwork aside, you do not seem to grasp the significance of unilatleralism at all. It means we go it alone. And when you go it alone, you end up alone. That is where we stand now -- alone. Do not blame other countries for forcing us to stand lone -- we did because it has ideological appeal to a handful of people who saw an opportunity to use 9/11 to push a President who was weak in the area of foreign policy to seize upon their ideology as the answer to all of America's problems -- and he was wrong.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (113009)	8/27/2003 6:56:33 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<Similarly, the US disinclination not to be unprepared for the possible irrational action of a country like N Korea and go ahead with developing an anti-missile defense system is seen as a case of US "unilateralism". Are the four paragons of international virtue you mention going to intercept those missiles? Is the UN?> North Korea is an excellent example of the stupidity of unilateralism. In his axis of evil speech, Bush began the unveiling of unilateralism and announced a "hit list" of countries to which unilateralism is to be applied -- a stupid move if there ever was one. North Korea is now busy making nuclear bombs. What have we done since? Nothing. We are only now getting around to having talks on the issue of WMD despite the fact that they are making nuclear weapons as we speak -- that is one hell of a stupid way to approach our national security. Bush made a foolish and needless threat to North Korea in the axis of evil speech and then did nothing to deal with the situation. After a costly delay, a delay which is clearly the result of White House inaction, the White House is now engaged in talks with North Korea -- talks in which the US insisted on a format that is far from ideal, but at least some talks are underway. North Korea is a major league threat, and it has received a little league response from the White House. Meanwhile, a country that had no WMD has tied up the bulk of our troops in a pointless occupation of a hostile country that posed no threat to the US.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (113009)	8/27/2003 3:02:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Great post, frank. You won't convince GST but you didn't waste your time.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (113009)	8/27/2003 3:39:21 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

Outstanding post. Unilateral, I suppose, unless you had help which would make it bi-lateral if not multi-lateral Regards Sig

To: frankw1900 who wrote (113009)	8/27/2003 4:12:40 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Check this: Message 19250597

To: frankw1900 who wrote (113009)	8/27/2003 4:30:17 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

Al Qaeda and its ilk want to remake the world to its vision and only an equally expansive response can be adequate. Security exercises and policing are tactical. An adequate strategy leading to aQ's defeat is remaking the ME into an environment hostile to it.. At this juncture a festering problem such as Iraq, a secular mirror image of the theocratic regimes of the area, becomes a vehicle. AQ is not finished by any means. If reports are correct, it will attack us in Iraq, as we do whatever reconstruction we have planned for takes place. Such a response on its part validates your point. Before long, the cry to bringing the boys home will be overwhelming. It will be the political issue of the Presidential campaign. Can we fight a guerrila war? If we don't do so successfully, Saudi Arabia will be in even more peril than it is, Hamas and Hizbollah will feel their collective oats, and Iran will seek to extend its influence. I sometimes wonder if Bush and his advisors thought all these things through. I increasingly think not. Yet, the stakes are so high that I don't think we can abandon the strategy you describe. Even if the nature of the ME is changed, I fear that such a change would be temporary. The bottom line, I suppose, is that we have a force in the ME that can protect Saudi Arabia from a potential AQ takeover of its oil, though doing so would be an event whose consequences I hate to think about. Pollack was right: without an adequate post-war plan, the chaos could make the adventure not worth the price.