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 (26244)	1/25/2004 6:53:53 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793895

The last paragraph of your post shows how you have chosen to ignore what really happened in the run up to the war in Iraq. It clearly establishes your misguided partisan POV that is at odds with facts & reality. It also exposes your extremist views, 'in your own words'. Moderates, liberals & conservatives alike supported the Coalition that moved to stop Saddam. Most were not "true believers". They did not label those who dissented. They presented their case based on the best intelligence available. You on the other hand, inappropriately tarred & labeled those who supported the Bush Administration's multilateral coalition. You accomplished this by applying the typical specious & frequently discredited tactics of the extreme left in the process.

To: Lane3 who wrote (26244)	1/27/2004 1:19:08 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793895

is the polarizing notion of folks in the unilateralist camp that any moderate and reasonable efforts to get along are automatically subservience. That's a minority, I would say. Or angry talking. I disagree with you that it is "typical" to want subservience. What is typical is to eschew unilateralism. I would say that it is typical of those in the internationalist and progressivist camps to want subservience. They just wrap it in the word "multilateral". I would say it is NOT typical to eschew unilateralism. It WAS typical during the brief period of the Cold War, where collective security demanded a sublimation of the narrow national interest. The manichaen world of the Cold War no longer exists, and the way in which we engage our interests in the world are free of the constraints to maintain an alliance in a desperate fight. The gloves are off. What is at issue isn't whether one prefers moderate diplomacy. The issue at hand is whether those who prefer moderate diplomacy prefer moderate diplomacy for its own sake, or as a means to an end. And if that means fails, then other means, unilateral action if necessary, are tools in our bag. Derek