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: blue red who wrote (127027)	3/22/2004 3:36:20 PM
From: blue red	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I see there are a zillion posts to answer. Waaaay too many. I'll do my best when I get a chance.

To: blue red who wrote (127027)	3/22/2004 4:12:48 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, I generally argue my points, but I was responding to a particular piece posted by E in a manner I thought circumstantially appropriate. The point was that a bunch of obiter were being put out as fact that were controversial, so I merely contradicted them. Any, E said that Bush was told, so you have no point there. She also said that some were justifying the war on the basis of the mass graves, implying "alone", so again, you butt in to no purpose. Since preventive war is not likely to occur with any frequency, it is possible we could afford the rare instances of it. That should be simple enough to grasp. If we leave upon request, as we have, for example, in the Phillippines or Saudi Arabia, it is not meaningful to call it an imperial presence. Again, I am not sure what is hard to understand about that point. This is a speculative matter dependent upon various premises. Trying to keep it brief, even terrorists need training camps, operations offices, financial facilities, and so forth to rise above the level of a few disgruntled guys, and do real damage. If we have a solider presence in the Middle East, it will be easier to disrupt their operations on an ongoing basis. Eventually, even a fanatic tires of being ineffectual. I read the French press regularly. Some of our alliances are strained, none are torn. There is still a strong sense of the importance of the existing alliance structure. Under foreseeable circumstances, we will not be attacking them. It would take a profound change to create the conditions for it to occur. Public support has proven pretty durable on this score, which means that it remains politically viable for now, though it is not clear if that will remain so. A lot, of course, depends on the next election. However, if Bush wins, and increases his majority in Congress, he will have been vindicated, from a political standpoint. It is not unpatriotic to ask if any of it is our fault, but it is the wrong question. Is the anti- Americanism a proportionate response to our dealings with th Arab or Muslim world, all things considered? I would say no, and therefore that there is a clearly irrational core which is not reasonably reacting to our behavior. Nor is our patronage of Israel a sufficient cause, since Arab hostility to Israel has historically been extreme and interlarded with anti- semitism. Even today, the Muslim world sells infamous anti- semitic tracts like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as if they were legitimate works of history. The Arab press is notorious for its inaccuracy and credulity in floating conspiracy theories, and in its indulgence of anti- semitic rants in th op- eds. Anyway, that is enough for now.