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: KLP who wrote (175508)	11/22/2005 2:43:08 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Karen, two "libs cutting and running" posts? It must be nice to see life in clear perspectives where those who disagree on complex issues are not just wrong, but cowards or traitors as well. Many of us on the other side aren't like that. We can accept the opinions of those with whom we strongly disagree without the emotional need to impugn their character or motives. After all, many people are wrong but very few are traitors. Take me, for instance. I think the Administration exaggerated the threat of a Saddam-led Iraq. I think they did it deliberately and for the purpose of justifying a war that they could only support by creating a false sense of genuine alarm in the minds of Americans. I call that lying. In addition I don't think staying the course in Iraq is an option that will make us safer or further our interests in the world. I think it will result in an ever increasing level of Iraqi based insurgency and worldwide terrorism and that the opportunity costs of using our military assets, our diplomatic assets and our treasure over there instead of elsewhere would be huge. I think we should be analyzing how soon we can get out and I've written several posts justifying my position. Are my views based on fear and disloyalty? Am I a coward or a traitor? Who are these "libs" you are so dismissive of. Is Murtha a "lib?" Did he become one the minute he saw the Iraqi war differently? Are those military men who see the war in the same light as Murtha "libs?" You know, the men who are out there fighting it but who think we ought to leave sooner rather than later? What is a "lib" anyway? Have you considered that the founding fathers were libs? That's right, the men who founded this country and the men whose ideas conservatives continually trumpet as the ideas that should govern this country 200 plus years later were "libs." Many of their views are now considered conservative but in their time they would have been considered flaming liberals. I guess those founding father "libs" were right because their ideas have worked out pretty well and much of the world is moving toward their views of the manner in which society should be governed. That's how it works. Civilization evolves. New ways of dealing with problems are advanced and if they're useful to civilization those new ideas take hold and are woven into the fabric of our lives. When they've become established in our way of life ultra conservatives fall in love with them and never want them to change. But those new ideas must first overcome the opposition of conservatives and that usually won't occur until a critical need for new ideas becomes apparent. This may be one of those eras where the world has evolved to the point where we need new ideas. With new weaponry technology that exponentially magnifies the killing power of small groups and individuals, with new, many faceted means of sharing ideas and information across the world, with large and growing gaps in the standards of living within nations and internationally, with increasingly radical religious movements and with one superpower in the world, maybe new ideas will find fertile ground. The biggest "libs" right now are the neocons. We're trying their new/old ideas of purposeful world dominance through the exercise of military and economic power and those ideas are proving unworkable. It seems they're failing because, like the ideas behind communism, their ideas failed to accurately gauge human nature and the reactions of individuals and nations to their steps toward empire. The evidence, therefor, seems to be telling us that those of you who continue to subscribe to such ideas are destined to suffer an embarrassing intellectual defeat and the eventual loss of public support at the voting booth. As soon as the neocons are run out of office the "libs" you gleefully denigrate will begin to step into the breach and we'll see if their policies of a softer, more tolerant approach to international relations will create a more peaceful, more civilized world or not. As a side note, oddly enough the "libs" are much more "conservative" than the neocons. The "libs" more "diplomatic" approach mirrors the policies we used to work our way through the dangerous era of the cold war where one mistake could have cost millions of lives. And it worked. Go figure. Ed

To: KLP who wrote (175508)	11/23/2005 4:08:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No.. missed the Ralph Peters article.. Do you have a link? As for being hit by Nukes from Iran, that's not really my concern, because they know the retalitory strike would turn their country into a glass parking lot. What DOES worry me is the domino effect of Iran's possession of Nukes forcing Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, and every other country in the region obtaining Nukes. On the other hand, Iran's possession of nukes CLEARLY forces the other governments in the region into the US sphere, if only for the protection of our nuclear umbrella. But I don't think we're really into bearing the burden of such an obligation. Hawk