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: Ilaine who wrote (38985)	4/12/2004 1:21:52 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793843

Probably all of us are struggling with this. But you have pointed right to it... Maybe the reason I am having a hard time articulating it, is that once I've articulated it, what have I accomplished? I can't change them, all I can do is gape at them, astonished at their mendacity.

To: Ilaine who wrote (38985)	4/12/2004 2:39:24 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

"You've put your finger on something I am struggling with myself, struggling with how to understand it, struggling with how to express it." Well, it was worth the struggle then CB. You hit the nail on the head IMO.

To: Ilaine who wrote (38985)	4/12/2004 3:37:21 PM
From: mistermj	Respond to of 793843

Excellent post CB.Thank you!

To: Ilaine who wrote (38985)	4/12/2004 5:22:37 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

*I think it's a pernicious kind of nihilism...* Pernicious? ...No doubt. But please CB, I can assure you that we Nihilists have nothing whatever to do with their intellectual quagmires. At best these Teddyfied panderers and cheese eating bell cows could only be qualified as Half-Stepping Nihilists and you know it. Forget SI Bob! ...I have a good mind to report you to the National Association for the Advancement of Complete Nihilists!! <Hoo><Haa><Hoo> 0\|0

To: Ilaine who wrote (38985)	4/13/2004 4:09:37 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 793843

David Brooks has written an excellent column expressing exactly your point: The Uncertainty Factor By DAVID BROOKS Published: April 13, 2004 Twenty years ago, Secretary of State George Shultz went to the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York to give a speech about terrorism. Fighting a war on terrorism, he emphasized, means coping with uncertainty. Terrorists operate outside the normal rules, Shultz observed. Because an attack is so hard to anticipate, he said, "our responses should go beyond passive defense to consider means of active prevention, pre-emption and retaliation. Our goal must be to prevent and deter future terrorist acts." We can't wait for the sort of conclusive evidence that would stand up in a court of law. "We cannot allow ourselves to become the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond." We have to take the battle to the terrorists so we can at least control the time and place of the confrontation. And we have to plan these counteroffensives aware of how little we know for sure. Facing such great uncertainties, Shultz continued, the president has to take extra care to prepare the electorate: "The public must understand before the fact that some will seek to cast any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by us in the worst light and will attempt to make our military and our policy makers — rather than the terrorists — appear to be the culprits. The public must understand before the fact that occasions will come when their government must act before each and every fact is known." The Shultz speech opened a rift within the Reagan administration. Shultz's argument was that uncertainty forces us to be aggressive. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, on the other hand, argued that uncertainty should make us cautious. As one Weinberger aide told The Times, "The Pentagon is more aware of the downside of military operations and therefore is cautious about undertaking operations where the results are as unpredictable as in pre-emptive strikes against terrorists." Shultz and Weinberger were clear and mature. Both understood there is no perfect answer to terror and both understood the downsides of their respective positions. Two decades and a national tragedy later, it is hard to find anybody that consistent. If you follow the 9/11 commission, you find yourself in a crowd of Shultzians. The critics savage the Clinton and Bush administrations for not moving aggressively enough against terror. Al Qaeda facilities should have been dismantled before 9/11, the critics say. Then you look at the debate over Iraq and suddenly you see the same second-guessers posing as Weinbergerians. The U.S. should have been more cautious. We should have had concrete evidence about W.M.D.'s before invading Iraq. Step back and you see millions of people who will pick up any stick they can to beat the administration. They're perfectly aware of the cruel uncertainties that confront policy makers, but, opportunistically, they ignore them. Nor has the administration itself demonstrated that it can operate as intelligently as Shultz in a world of uncertainty. The administration war plan called for a lean, high-tech invasion. That's fine if you know who your enemies are and where you can hit them. But if you don't have that information, you probably have to hang around, feeling your way through the neighborhoods. For that you need boots on the ground — enough to cope with the unexpected. You need heavy armor, because it's likely your enemies will strike first before you know where they are. The Bush administration sent too few troops into Iraq, and they stuck them in Humvees that couldn't withstand a semi-serious terrorist attack. Worse yet, the administration never bothered to educate the American people on the nature of war amid uncertainty. The president did not stress beforehand that it was necessary to act, even though some of his suppositions would inevitably prove to be incorrect. When you read the Shultz speech, you get the impression the country is aging backward. Twenty years ago we had a leader who treated us like adults, mature enough to cope with harsh uncertainties. Now we're talked to as if we're children, which, if you look at the hypocrisy-laden terror debate, is about what we deserve. nytimes.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (38985)	4/13/2004 10:08:44 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793843

<<< You've put your finger on something I am struggling with myself, struggling with how to understand it, struggling with how to express it.>>> I don't think I need to say it, but I will. I don't have any answers. Secondly, I fully believe in the separation of church and state. Third, I know this thread is not about religion. Having said that, I would like for you to consider this: The Roman Catholic Church has been struggling with good and evil for quite some time. But like any organization they have had some operational failures. Basic principles and doctrines, however, have not changed. They have had overtime some extraordinary minds vetting principles and doctrines - including Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Avery Dulles to name just a few. For anything to last this long and be this successful, there has to be something there. I don't think we can discard what they are saying so lightly. This is a very round about way for me to say this: I am really troubled by the pre-emption doctrine. For now, you may be comfortable with the leaders elected by less than a majority and agree with their policies, but what happens if someone in the future gets elected by less than a majority and what they see as the greater good is all screwed up. Is it all that farfetched that someday we may elect as President someone who believed that - deleted bad example - and that we have to do something about it? I really don't like to think about such things. I don't really think I have the mind to be able to deal with such questions. But, what worries me is that many with minds even inferior to mine, do not even question their capabilities. Bottom line is, I am troubled and I don't have the answers. I had to gets this off my chest and I don't expect to comment further on this. Thanks for lending an eyeball.