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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24492)	1/15/2004 10:47:01 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793955

Doubt vs. Hope in the Middle East By Jim Hoagland Thursday, January 15, 2004; Page A21 BERLIN -- Initial steps by the Bush administration to make the Middle East the new strategic center of U.S.-European relations are encountering muted questioning and moderate skepticism from alliance partners. Count this reaction as progress, of a sort. Count it, that is, as someone not hitting you in the face with a wet fish. Countries that angrily opposed the invasion of Iraq want to avoid a repeat of the open bitterness and division of 2003. France and Germany have joined other NATO nations in welcoming alliance consultations recently launched by Washington, which has its own reasons to reach out internationally. Berlin, the city that was the cockpit of the Cold War, now hosts foreign policy conferences in which Moscow is rarely mentioned. Instead, events in Ankara, Tehran, Jerusalem or Baghdad are analyzed, celebrated or deplored in terms of their impact on global stability. Conceptually the Middle East today drives U.S.-European relations as directly as the Soviet threat once did. But a transatlantic strategic consensus on combating terrorism and other threats arising from the Middle East is yet to be reached. Disagreement on Iraq is only the most urgent and salient point of dispute when it comes to a region that many European governments fear can only get worse and the Bush administration feels must be made better. This psychological gap is important: Europeans decades ago charged into the developing world with a mixture of bold determination and romanticism that presaged the Bush administration's effort to remake the Middle East. But they bogged down in colonial wars and economic quagmires and can expound at length now on why the "utopian" U.S. effort to implant democracy in Iraq and beyond will meet the same fate. President Bush and his aides hope to counter both complacency and cynicism with their "Greater Middle East Initiative," a package of political, military and economic programs that the White House will assemble and display at high-level international gatherings. If the initiative fares well, they'll also use it on the campaign trail this election year. The White House hopes that NATO, at its June summit in Istanbul, will offer to extend military training and other cooperation to Israel and the Islamic countries from Morocco to Afghanistan. As U.S. diplomats have outlined it to European colleagues, this effort would be modeled on the Partnership for Peace plan that NATO extended to the Eastern European and Central Asian countries that emerged from the Soviet empire at the end of the Cold War. At the Sea Island, Ga., summit of the Group of Eight industrial nations in early June, the administration will seek coordinated economic help for the region to underpin a political transformation akin to the 1975 "Helsinki process" on human and economic rights that helped end the Cold War. The Europeans are not going to rush to agreement on Bush's still-evolving, vastly ambitious plan. For one thing, they will want to make sure he is going to be reelected before they commit resources and prestige to the effort. Bush's puzzling delay in formally accepting an invitation to the 60th anniversary celebrations of D-Day in France also slows planning for the summer. But there are deeper doubts. France is concerned about losing influence in North Africa and is joined by Germany and others in worrying that the European Union's Mediterranean policy (and funds) will be displaced or absorbed by a bigger U.S. effort. There is also a suspicion that Washington will use its big initiative to deflect urgent action on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not clear if major European countries will wind up opposing the initiative, ignoring it or, as I suspect, putting forward their own alternative, which will center on diplomatic and economic help for Turkey and Iran as vital to modernizing the Middle East. A hint of this came at the annual Bertelsmann Forum here last week, where Turkey's future relations with Europe dominated the opening session. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed that Turkish membership in the European Union would entrench democracy in his country and show that democracy and Islam can coexist. He made no mention of Turkey's once-strong relations with the United States. Disillusioned Europeans are betting the sure thing. They see failure as the default position for the Arab world: Democratization efforts will bring chaos. Give Bush credit for being much bolder and more imaginative. And hope that he can shape a strategy that gets him to his worthy goals in the Middle East. ">jimhoagland@washpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (24492)	1/15/2004 1:13:29 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

the opposite of Christ's values. Yep. The "Christian Justice Mechanism" is "turn the other cheek." Pacificism. Various sects of Christianity have tried it over the years. The only problem with it is that it is a complete, 100 per cent, failure as a way to govern a society. The reason that Christianity has made it is the ideas of the Old Testament. The Mosaic Code of "An eye for an eye" is an excellent Justice mechanism, and some flavor of it guides all Western Civilizations. It has been degraded by the introduction of "Penology." You can play the game of being a "Pacifist" if you live in a "Mosaic Code" Society that will protect you.

To: Lane3 who wrote (24492)	1/15/2004 5:46:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" - yet the Bush administration was hell-bent for war in Iraq Iraq wasn't exactly a place of peace. Low level conflict there since 1990 and general repression. I would not go as far as claiming "Jesus' teachings support Bush's plan/actions in Iraq", but I don't think the claim that they are in opposition is a slam dunk. Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor" and lived among the lowly - yet the Bush administration showered trillion-dollar tax giveaways on the wealthy "Blessed are the poor", doesn't mean "blessed is the person who imposes high taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth through government social programs. Jesus opposed the death penalty, saying, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" This is a better argument but not a lot better. The case Haught refers to is on incidence when the death penalty was being used as a punishment for adultery, not for murder which is pretty much the only thing that gets the death penalty anymore. "Why on earth do so many churchgoers vote for the opposite of Jesus?" I'd ask Jim Wallis - Why do so many people try to co-opt Jesus in to their political ideology... "Neglect of the environment is a religious issue. I would not call that a religious issue. Its an issue which religious organizations have opinions about and which religious teaching touches on, but its not a religious issue. Also it doesn't seem to call any opposition to any environmental proposal, or any specific reduction in environmental regulations (even while other new regulations are imposed) to be an example of neglecting the environment. "Allowing the right to decide what is a religious issue would be both a moral and political tragedy. . . . True faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins." Of course. Wallis must decide what issues qualify as religious, and the correct opinion to hold on each of them... "God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and one's faith in God is not based on what party they belong to," Finally something I can agree with in the article. Tim