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 (113192)	8/29/2003 8:22:02 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for an interesting reply. ""Since the experiment has not been done neither you nor I can predict what would happen" Actually it has been done, sort of. Amin just died in Saudi Arabia. Bokassa in France." By making an offer one can't refuse I mean an offer that addresses the problems at hand, not an offer to abdicate when the situation is hopeless. ""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." I don't know about the WMDs in 45 mins. Did the US folk say that?" Blair said that but you really don't believe that Blair and Bush operate totally independent of each other? ""As to Rumsfeld's comments on the uncertainty of the outcome of the Iraq war I would appreciate a source." Just about any press conference before and during the war. This was a very common form: 'I can't say how it's going to turn out. It hasn't happened, yet, has it? We hope that...'" Rumsfeld, March 26, 2003 "With each passing day, the Iraqi regime is losing control over more of the country," Rumsfeld said. "Coalition forces are closing in on Baghdad and will not stop until that regime has been driven from power ... All that is unclear is the number of days or weeks it will take." It's months now. Zalmay Khalilzad has been both right and wrong in his analysis of Afghanistan(he,at first, supported the Taliban) and Iraq(one of several authors to the thesis that Iraq was far more dangerous than Iran). Some say that had Zalmay Khalilzad been in private business he would have been fired long ago for his mistakes. "What is remarkable, coming from conservatives, is the audacity of the overall aim: bringing democracy to the Middle East! One man one vote, every time. Separation of state and religious institution.. Political headroom. Human rights. Checks and balances. This is not gradualism; it's revolution. Conservatives aren't big on revolution, you know." Yes, this is why it's important to look at the "axioms" with which the neo-conservatives operate. Just as it was(and still is) important to look at the "axioms" which formed the basis of communism, fascism and the nazi movement. I'm not very big on revolution(American excepted). Most of those who are called the founding fathers were conservative and revolutionary, not a new or unusual phenomenon. ""I would say they only undertook it because they saw more radical alternatives as unworkable. for example involving the UN." I think they don't trust the UN very much. That is, a good number of UN members are opposed to democracy and what it entails and are opposed to US goals in the ME. So I expect the present US government would approach UN involvement cautiously. Also, most UN employees don't sign up for service where they may be shot at or bombed -getting the UN in too soon might be counter productive." Here , again, is an indirect confirmation of the neo-conservative "political axioms". Just look at the vitriol many contributors to this thread pour over the UN. Part of the problem is that the concept of the UN(I posted the charter recently) is so difficult for nation states to accept(co-operation in cases where national interests are either not obvious(Rwanda)) or not in their interests(ME)). This is the prime reason for the criticism of unilateralism, it undermines the effort to strengthen multilateral co-operation which,in the long run, is the only way to avoid a world wide catastrophe. That the UN is not very good at this is and has been evident for a long time(almost since its inception). That doesn't mean that the concept is wrong only that the participants are recalcitrant.