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: marcos who wrote (122198)	12/27/2003 6:00:34 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

Re Globalization War talk has risen far above its real importance to the progress of globalization which proceeds apace, while separatism leads to condemnation and sanctions by most developed nations. Our Foreign policy has to allow for threats even greater than military action. These threats include the biological and chemical threats posed by Sars, by Aids, by accidental radiation releases, by mutations in flu viruses, by chemicals released into the environment (by autos for example, or pesticides) Despite their importance, and that many more lives could be saved or vastly improved through their correction than by any war , the Political podium concentrates on ethics of the THE IRAQ WAR as the deciding factors for seeking votes. The war is merely the first of many operations required to have a better 21 st Century than the last which included 2 world wars. It was off to a poor start with an economic depression vastly greater in magnitude than 1929. Some of the important work to be done is by the CDC and INS to control terrorists and disease propagation. Do we allow immigrants whose children have not been inoculated to come in and provide a thread that can spread an epidemic? And then again, mother nature will be at work to help decide what actions are best implemented. story.news.yahoo.com

To: marcos who wrote (122198)	12/27/2003 10:08:05 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Pretty quick with the charges of falsehood though, arencha .... gee you people are up late, Actually, I had just rolled in from a social event and was "unwinding".. And you take far too much umbrage to my correction.. My point was that the US strategic bombing campaign did relatively little damage to the German economy. It was only when they targeted critical industries, such as ball bearings and oil, that made a difference (and in the case of ball bearings, they decentralized the production). But you bring up a good point that Speer made about how little economic sacrifice Hitler initially required from the German peope. In part, psychologically, it showed that Hitler felt he had not fully consolidated his power over his rivals. But toward the end of the war, it became clear, from the thousand plane bombing raids, and hundreds of thousands of families having lost their sons, that the war was lost and that the Russians were coming. The Nazis were forced to implement harsh discipline to maintain social order, but it was aso a matter of a fight to the bitter end on the eastern front. The west became a refuge, and a place to surrender honorably, in hopes that the US and Brits would beat the Russians to Berlin. It is a mistake to applaud your nation down a path of rejecting international cooperation and unilaterally invading other nations .... on this course there be monsters, and they won't all have french accents NO.. the rejection of international cooperation came from France, Russia, and Germany, all of whom recognized that Iraq was violating the will of the UNSC, but THEN was unwilling to enforce those resolutions. It was THEY WHO REJECTED international cooperation in bringing Iraq's intransigence to an end, not the US. Bush obtained the UNSC resolution giving 90 days for Iraq to comply or face serious consequences (and there was no doubt what those serious consequences would be when 1441 was penned). If France and Russia didn't agree with that resolution, they shouldn't have voted for it. But it's utterly ridiculous to create an international law and then FAIL to enforce it. That was Bush's point.. So while it's apparent that you prefer to side with those who would make a mockery of the UN process, you're absolutely and factually incorrect when you claim Bush was operating outside of international cooperation. Bush was trying to save the UN as an effective organization while the agenda of France, Germany, and Russia was to maintain the UN as a "paper tiger". A hollow organization that is so spineless, and full of elitists, that they can get chased out of a complete humanitarian relief mission in Iraq because their own lax security permits a suicide bombing against their headquarters. Bottom line, the US was enforcing over 17 respective international "laws" by overthrowing Saddam. France, Germany, and Russia were acting AGAINST international law by protecting Saddam. Hawk