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: Dale Baker who wrote (5161)	12/20/2003 1:15:03 PM
From: rrufff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I agree that case by case may lead to different results. In Quadaffi's case, the key is that he has been humiliated by this. He has admitted that he has WMD programs and has agreed to eliminate them. There is no reason for him to retain WMD at this point. It's not going to keep him in power or give Libya a chance in any future war. The key to WMD is the threat and the secrecy and this was Saddam's tactic. Getting your enemy to believe you have WMD is as good, from practical purposes, as having WMD. I've been advised that the technology is sufficient to give reliable analysis of nuclear programs. I don't believe there is any way to effectively be 100% clear that there are no biologicial and chemical programs. From what I've read, Qadaffi has agreed to surprise and thorough checks. He has put himself on the line a major move in the Arab world and must now hope that he is admitted into the world as a economic participant.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (5161)	12/20/2003 1:48:53 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I don't think any of this has to do with a lack of patriotism. To the contrary, criticism of your government is the most patriotic act an individual can do in a free society. That is what distinguishes them from the aforementioned regimes. One merely has to look at the history of Imperialism and try to draw some conclusions about the long-term stability afforded by national policies that are tactical only. I make it real simple when I discuss this - it really is a-political (with respect to party): Suppose someone has an argument with their neighbor. It gets so bad that one neighbor starts killing the other neighbor's pet. This escalates to the throwing of rocks , occasional fist fights and threats of death. Now it becomes revealed that Neighbor 1 decided to buy all of their sustenance from the more bellicose of neighbors. My question: Is it a good idea to have no policy to develop alternative supply lines? Should one buy their daily necessities from the bellicose neighbor? What would a reasonable person think of someone who did and had no plan to stop or find alternative relationships for their needs? World policy isn't that complicated in principle. One needs to be as self-sufficient as possible (Where is our "man to the moon" equivalent for energy independence?) and always work on improving the relations with neighbors that have historically liked you (Why are we alienating Europe when we had their sympathy over 911?). At the very least, one doesn't want to get too cozy with the cantankerous few who present the most risk (like Muammar Qadhafi, Ossama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). In fact if one can't move, they'd better find out some ways to minimize contact with the bad neighbors while keeping them on their side of the fence. Saddam had nothing to do with 911 or knowingly harboring terrorists, as far as we can tell. The same is not true of Libya.