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: Maurice Winn who wrote (176233)	11/29/2005 5:29:28 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's been a while since the last one. You can't go on dining out on that for the 21st century. The first one was nearly a century ago. I believe that's the last time the US was directly attacked by an enemy. So I think I CAN get some leverage out of it. The difference is that WWII was carried out by State actors, governments of respective hostile countries. This war is being carried out by non-state actors, who happen to be finding sanctuary amongst certain states who are willing to permit their activities (and sometimes even directly support them) against our country. I equate it to a possible scenario where a fledgling Nazi party, attempting to generate support from a population that deeply resented "reparations", deciding to use terrorism to display how it would retaliate against the "oppressors" of the German people. Now, of course, this didn't happen. But what if it had? Could we justify re-initiating hostilities against Germany, or Argentina, or the other places that harbored these Nazi leaders and ideologues? I don't want to wait until the equivalent of a Hitler or Tojo rises amongst the Islamic Militants and gains complete control over a sovereign country. The toll in blood and treasure would FAR EXCEED what is currently being spent now.. And we'd STILL be stuck rebuilding the defeated nation, as well as "re-programming" the social and educational system that permitted that totalitarian ideology to take root in the first place. And while I don't seek to see a "global president" emerge out of the UN, were that to be the case, it still would not detract from the necessity of the government's policies having an "enforcement" capability.. a global police, if you will. We would never permit a totalitarian political party to dismantle the US political system (or I hope not), were they elected. And we should not permit non-democratic states in the United Nations from being able to subvert the goals of creating democracy throughout the world. That's basically letting the "fox into the hen house". Hawk