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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3262)	1/12/2004 8:09:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 3959

I repeat, his foreign policy is a failure. He abandoned the national interest of protecting American lives from terrorism Abandoned? Last I heard, all of your liberals are B&Ming about the patriot act, as well as the police state that Bush has created in order to track the movemments of terrorists and the money that supports them.. And we haven't had any confirmed Al-Qaeda related terrorist attack in this nation since 9/11. And we have hundreds of detainees in Guatanamo suspected of links to terrorism, which bleeding heart liberals are trying to get released.. Al-Sayaaf, due to US support for the Phillipines counter-insurgency efforts, has severely its operations. Musharraf has altered his political alliances from supporting the Taliban to actively countering Islamic militancy in Pakistan. We have Syria talking to Israel about peace.. That's "abandoning" the national interest to combatting terrorism????!!!! I am saying that Bush's foreign policy is a miserable failure. It is? Why? Because the French don't like us anymore?? Waaahhhh!!!! I didn't see Clinton having nearly the success that the Bush administration has shown in combatting terrorism and restructuring the balance of power in the mid-east.. I certainly didn't see Libya give up their WMD program under Clinton... Face facts Chinu.. the Bush administration has been very successful.. You just don't like how they went about it. You don't like the fact that we didn't subvert the US national interests to those of France, Germany, and Russia. You don't like how Bush opted not to continue entertaining French and Russian delays and excuses related to enforcing UNSC binding resolutions... Yeah... he was forceful... he p*ssed off some governments who have claimed they were our "allies" (while acting against the interests of the US and the UN).. And he's about as subtle as a bull in a china shop at times.. But when you want to create changes on an international scale, the best way to do it is to convince the rest of the world that you're out of control and willing to risk upsetting their apple carts.... That way they will be more amenable to any signs of moderation on your part.. It worked with Reagan, and I dare say that it will work with Bush... The problem with Americans is that we're too concerned about the feelings of other nations and governments. Feelings that are not often reciprocal towards us.. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, someone is going to criticize US policy because we're the only superpower on the planet... We were criticized for insisting that sanctions remain against Iraq, because Europe claimed 1/2 million Iraqi children died over that 12 year period.. But then we're criticized when we attempt to change that situation and remove the government that has been repressing them and violating binding UN resolutions. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.. All we can do is ensure that what we do will create a overall positive change for people in the region involved. And that is clearly the case for Iraq, over the long term.. Hawk