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 (183967)	3/23/2006 10:42:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think they are talking mostly about promoting democratic reform etc thru force and perhaps they would say without regard to more traditional definitions of national interest. As opposed to how the folks who don't believe in democracy are perfectly content to promote THEIR beliefs through force? Did we achieve our democracy and independence from England by "hugging" the redcoats and royal loyalists? No.. we used force.. I don't have a problem with the use of force and violent struggle, SO LONG as the goal is that people are fighting for the individuals rights of not just themselves, but also to preserve the rights of their rivals, under a mutually agreed upon rule of law. Pacifism might ultimately win against tyranny, and I'm fine with peaceful political resistance. But the cost in lives will often be far higher. And peaceful disobediance is going to mean little to any government that is not worried about domestic, or international, accountability. They'll merely massacre anyone who participates, which will quickly intimidate everyone else. The bottom line is that there is going to continue to be blood spilled in the Arab world (and quite a few other places), some of it American, and most of it Arab. The question is how much blood will be spilled by Americans in the future if we do nothing to prevent the bloodbath that will occur is Islamo-Fascists are able to dominate Iraq. Hawk

To: michael97123 who wrote (183967)	3/23/2006 2:54:49 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Now you make an excellent point on how many lives we lose if we go to far toward isolationism. Thats something for them to answer. Staying out of the internal affairs of sovereign nations that do not threaten the US, do not invade their neighbors and simply make a lot of loud, empty noises, is not isolationism. If they truly threaten us, if they act against us or if they invade neighbors states that are allies of ours, then we act. That's self defense. Anything else is simply arrogant, bullying interventionalism and is likely to create more terrorism and poor cost/benefit return for America. And, Michael, when do you think that you'll finally weigh the pros and cons and make a decision on whether our intervention in Iraq is doomed? In particular, when are you going to arrive at a decision that doesn't end with "but no one can say for sure?" I ask because we're spending billions a month and, far more importantly, lives are being ripped to shreds while we sit around trying to find some way to be right in an effort where we've been wrong from the start and reality keeps shoveling shit onto our efforts. That must mean something. I've heard so many times from you words like, "if in 3, or 6 or 8 months we aren't at xxx point then I'll thrown in the towel." And guess what, those months come and go and you're still saying the same things while our soldiers are maimed and killed. What is it that makes you so want the Bush people to be right when they're clearly so wrong? Unlike Hawk, you're too smart not to see it for what it is but for some reason your emotions just won't let go of "hope." Hope is a poor substitute for clear thinking when other people are out there dying trying to push that string. Ed