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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (4879)	12/8/2003 8:38:35 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I said the US is the only power with significant lift capability to put large amounts of forces into a situation. I should have extended my argument to say the US has a responsibility to lead international efforts, but also to build genuine international consensus on important security issues. Our approach this time was "We are right, we are acting, if you don't like it, *&%^ you!" Now we know the limits of that kind of unilateralism. The US wouldn't be hamstrung and unable to contemplate significant use of force outside Iraq if hadn't painted ourselves into such a tight corner. Reacting in pure frustration to 9/11 is also bad policy. I applauded Bush's quick move to go after the source in Afghanistan. Tying Iraq into that equation was a lie and a stupid move. Especially when it became the acid test for the new uniliateralism. There were workable solutions for Iraq before the invasion (a strong, durable inspection regime) and after (working with the UN and our allies for a joint occupation). With all due respect (and I respect your point of view and our debates here) saying they don't exist doesn't make them go away.