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: Rascal who wrote (165219)	7/2/2005 2:23:45 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<I think everybody has an idea of what America is in his or her heart, and I think they are virtually identical or more like generic. (ButGood Generic.) The polarization, labels, pundits, media tend to diminish the chances for us to agree. I think there is a DNA for America and our shared attributes are 98.9%.> The issue is rarely and the kind of society in which we want to live -- the gap is in how we achieve that, especially on a global basis. The issue comes down to this: What is the most effective way for the US to play a global leadership role? Outside of the US, there are clearly many people who would respond as follows: We don't want to be like you and the last thing we want is for you to be in a position to tell us what to do. Half of America thinks we are entrusted by 'god' to tell the world what to do and to use our military capability to drive the point home. The other half of America thinks this is not only doomed to failure, but is in itself an example of the way in which America pursues its own freedom by denying other countries theirs. The half that does not want to use the US military to dictate terms to the world is more inclined to lead by example, and in that vein is critical of the ways in which we fail to live up to our own ideals -- and we rarely show this more convincingly than when we torture our prisoners. This half does see the role of the US military as defending freedom -- but invading Iraq does not qualify. This is a soruce of confusion for many. When we invaded Iraq we told the world that the US has the power to dictate terms and is ready and willing to do just that. But 'freedom' requires more than force. Without the support of the rest of the world on a global agenda for human progress, we have no legal or moral authority to invade and dictate terms to other countries. That does not 'defend freedom', it simply destroys our moral authority to lead. America did not destroy 'terrorism' by invading Iraq -- what we did was to choose to go down a path others do not want us to go down, a path others will not follow and will increasingly fight against, a path that weakens the prospects for global progress, a path that says "we are the supreme power on this planet and we will call the shots". When we invaded Iraq in the manner in which we did it, we hurt ourselves and the cause of freedom. America is divided, and we should understand why.

To: Rascal who wrote (165219)	7/2/2005 2:44:51 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This morning I picked a bunch of wild sand plums with my girlfriend (a native Chinese who came to America three years ago for the same freedoms and opportunity that all of our ancestors did). She's washing them in the kitchen right now. A certain number of them are overripe, or pecked by birds, or otherwise just gone bad. She's seperating those out, because you don't want to eat them or use them to cook with. Their time is past. Their special moment is over. They're useless. So it is with the liberals on this thread. What we have here now is a bucket of fruit gone bad.