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: Hawkmoon who wrote (134762)	5/28/2004 7:16:10 PM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 281500

As for who had an interest in seeing Spain pull out of Iraq? Where should we begin?? How about over 90% of the Spanish citizenry? Now THATS Democracy at work... And probably over 50% of the American public, as well as most of Europe and the free world.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (134762)	5/30/2004 2:06:28 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, the context within which our discussion on whether terrorism "needed" a state sponsor was your initial assertion that the use of blunt military force against nation states was necessary to win the war on terrorism because terrorism required a "state sponsor." My point was that terrorism did not need a state sponsor and, furthermore, that attacking Arab/Muslim states with overwhelming blunt force was counterproductive in the battle against terrorism. You've now modified your position to limit your statement to the type of terrorism that actually threatens... nation/states (their ability to survive and function), and further provided the limitation that it is "usually" state sponsored. Assuming you're finished with the gradual migration of your position toward a more moderate stance, there's now very little difference between your view and what I initially stated. The only disagreement that I see is with the implied assumption in your statement that terrorism that is "state sponsored" could threaten the survival of a country with the geographic, social and economic, and military capabilities that we enjoy here in America. Whether "state sponsored" or not, terrorism can exact a great price in economic, social and human terms on our country but it will not threaten our survival. In the course of time and as those with cooler heads and stronger constitutions prevail, it will not even threaten our survival as a country that protects the liberty of its citizens. To reach that point, of course, we must overcome our fears and our feeling that we are entitled to live free of physical threats. As for the rest of your post; it simply presents the same arguments you always advance when challenged to present a logical and common sense justification that explains how the use of blunt military force in the Mideast will result in less terrorism and a better world. I'll be happy to reply to any post of yours that explains how that can work but not to another of your posts that say "Is there something wrong with being as willing to influence the region with our own democratic values as the militants are with their theo-totalitarian ones?...stand firm in advancing democracy and reform in the region....the cost in defending ourselves 5-10 years from now, when the probability of even greater militancy rising from the economic and political stagnation, as well as the hopelessness of millions of young Muslims with no properous future, WILL BE TREMENDOUSLY GREATER than any cost we pay now in attempting to thwart it." Remember Hawk, I conceded the importance of the goal, I conceded the benevolence of the motives and I conceded that great costs were justified IF we could achieve our ends. I have never conceded that it's doable and you've never shown a progression of events or any rational set of assumptions that would indicate it is doable. You're not alone. I find it very interesting that all of the "moderate" hawks, and some that were radical, are now turning on the Bush Administration and saying one of two things. First some are saying that they are embarrassed for having been so naive as to misunderstand the culture and politics of the Gulf so badly, and that they should have listened to the pragmatists who said it couldn't be reasonably done. More interesting, however, are the more radical hawks who are turning on the Bush Administration like wolves and screaming that it was doable but the BUSH ADMINISTRATION was so incompetent that it couldn't get the job done right. For those of you who made such innovative arguments about how Iraq "wasn't another Vietnam" destined for failure, and how we could impose our will on a foreign people, maybe it's time for you to move on and talk about whether the finger pointing following the debacle in Iraq will be "another" post-Vietnam finger pointing bloodbath.