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: Elsewhere who wrote (126750)	3/21/2004 4:05:48 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well Jochen, you can criticize America for allot of things, but at least we can play with a remote controlled dune buggy and take pictures of blueberries on Mars. :0) csmonitor.com

To: Elsewhere who wrote (126750)	3/21/2004 6:45:16 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The USA have won the Iraq war as much as a war can be won militarily. I couldn't disagree more Jochen. We have won a battle, but the objective has not been obtained and is likely still years away. *Winning hearts and minds is a different matter and a pretty PCish target introduced only in the 20th century. The US forces could easily switch to a "5% mode" and finalize an old-fashioned victory.* I don't think that winning hearts and minds is or should be an objective of this or any war. As best I can tell war is a means by which you force people to make choices you want them to make. By imposing pain on them for making the wrong decisions, you get the conduct you want. To achieve this the pain-o-meter usually must be dialed up quite high. Often to the point at which it is painful to continue turning the knob. This is why we stopped on the road to Baghdad in 91. ...But it's also why we had to go back in 2003. And that is also why democracies are such poor "warriors" and great "warmongers." This continual himming and hawing, refusing to accept responsibility for the pain that our decisions require, but always insisting on sauntering out to prick the enemy; continually searching for a magic weapon to somehow kill the terrorist/bad guy, while leaving the presumed innocent teachers of terror whole... this is how I would define immorality. Yes you may win battles, but if you make this form of war a habit you will ultimately lose. To be clear: by "confronting" I don't mean nuking or bombing but, for instance, simply telling the western audience publicly in clear terms that there are certain mullahs who would like to kill "infidels" in large numbers. For dichotomies to be effective they have to be highlighted, and if it happens early they don't become deadly. I don't understand why you would address a Western audience to resolve the "bad" conduct of a Islamist radical. But be that as it may, your proposal for "confrontation" doesn't impress me as very effective. You can do away with the mosque, but haven't done anything to stop the hate teacher's conduct. Worse still you don't know where they are doing the teaching. ...Assuming you have in fact identified a mosque intended to be used for that purpose. *It's impossible to force it.* I agree you can never force anyone to love you. But you can certainly force a person, nation, people or religion to stop blowing up your stuff. If that is what you want. That is all I want. ...Today. <Hoo><Hoo> 0\|0