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: michael97123 who wrote (158040)	2/14/2005 10:29:47 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

The Wilsonian strain, the current neocon strain, the old liberal one world, pacifist strain from the 50s-60s all are in some way overly idealistic as presented by their advocates. Realism in fp formulation must play a role. So if you are to eschew dictators it is better to pick on the worse of the lot. Maybe musharif and mubarkek can evolve like the chinese and russians have into something better than they once were? But for instance how do you deal with those like the iranian mullahs and the North Koreans who seem to be evolving into something more dangerous. Where did mass murderer saddam fall into this? Why does the Sudan seem to have gotten a free pass over the years? This is tough stuff. If Sharansky oversimplifies to some extent he should be corrected. But Pat Buchanan comes at the problem with a clear anti-israel bias along with a nativist fp philosophy, no ideology which is just as dangerous long term for the US as extreme Wilsonianis might be. It amazes me that in this day liberals like Scott and Raimondo throw Pat at us as a sage. Somehow i think these guys would be interventionists in other areas where the result of such internationalism would be left wing takeovers of either despotic or somewhat democratic but conservatvie regimes. mike