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: greenspirit who wrote (140669)	7/16/2004 5:24:02 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

no- at least not in the style of Iraq. I am in favor of protected enclaves, in places like the Congo, and I am highly in favor of working with stable African nations, especially in the area of microcredit, to help establish businesses in Africa. Africa has cheap labor, and if the political climate is right businesses will come to exploit that labor. Money can be spent a lot more efficiently on stable poor countries than on unstable ones. I wish we were a bit more efficient and that we took a longer view. The US tends to be too reactionary and crisis oriented in its foreign policy, and on top of that it doesn't appear that our leaders have a very good grasp of what is really going on in the world. They are not only out of touch with many people in this country, but they are completely out of touch with people in other countries. That's a recipe for disaster. And before you bring it up, I don't think Clinton was much better- thought he was a bit better, since he was perceived as being more empathetic to other countries. I don't think Bush has any international reservoir of goodwill, and Clinton did, and that is worth quite a bit. imo