SI
SI
discoversearch

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: one_less who wrote (167234)7/26/2005 1:13:25 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Every so often, on rare occasions, when there is a direct extreme attack on Muslims, like say nuking Mecca or something like that, you take a position against that post. But I don't recall you opposing all that clash of civilization crap that was posted here. Nor do you see anything wrong with imposing American culture on other people, by supporting thugships if we can -- at gun point if we can't. Or else you would not have been so consistently pro-Bush (see below on the real difference between the two).

And yes, there are partisan people on the Dems side who probably would have supported Clinton if he had wanted to invade Iraq, but their numbers is far less than the pro-Bush crowd...and for good reason. By nature, left means love and tolerance of your fellow man (I am excluding extreme left and communists, they have a religion of their own). So they cannot really suppress dissent the way Bush has done.

More importantly, read the 1997 speech by former Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott:

"For the last several years, it has been fashionable to proclaim or at least to predict, a replay of the 'Great Game' in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The implication of course is that the driving dynamic of the region, fueled and lubricated by oil, will be the competition of great powers to the disadvantage of the people who live there.

"Our goal is to avoid and to actively discourage that atavistic outcome. In pondering and practicing the geopolitics of oil, let's make sure that we are thinking in terms appropriate to the 21st century and not the 19th century.
Let's leave Rudyard Kipling and George McDonald Fraser where they belong - on the shelves of historical fiction. The Great Game, which starred Kipling's Kim and Fraser's Flashman, was very much of the zero-sum variety. What we want to help bring about is just the opposite, we want to see all responsible players in the Caucasus and Central Asia be winners."


Now compare this with PNAC vision of the US' place in the world and you see where the real difference is.


The United States is the world’s only superpower, combining preeminent military power, global technological leadership, and the world’s largest economy. Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined.