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: GPS Info who wrote (184538)	4/4/2006 12:18:51 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree, but there could be limits… to changes in power. Uh, yes of course. I meant limits to my agreeing with you. The problem is that it might be perfectly Constitutional not to allow change. That IMO, is the sort of problem we have in Afghanistan: a Constitution which claims to allow freedom of religion and also claims to be based on Islamic law. The conclusion of the recent fracas does not solve the problem. There is a basic, unaddressed inconsistency. One clause is there for the sake of America, while the other clause is there for the sake of most of Afghanistan. But both are perfectly constitutional. That’s why I wouldn’t want theocracy that removed democratic institutions or policies after they were elected. There is no reason they need to remove them. As the Afghanistan Constitution shows, the problem might be embedded in the framework. You want me to answer why there is an inconsistency in US foreign policy? Sorry, I truly don’t have the bandwidth for that one. I'm not so concerned with inconsistency (as it affects others) as I am with ignoring history to our own detriment. Algeria was the beacon on a shipwrecking shore. Many people, for whatever reasons (quite noble reasons too) chose to ignore such facts, which is what surprised me in your quotes from Powell. Ignoring adverse facts because they might discourage you from "good" decisions struck me as very odd coming from someone who formulated the so-called Powell Doctrine. No, I wouldn’t agree with their view on the subjects that I listed, if they differed from mine. The question is not whether you agree with their views, it is whether you accept their "right" to them at the practice of same. I.e. it is about how America should deport itself wrt to their choices. Yes, absolutely everyone on this planet should be able to express their opinion on any subject without fear of a reprisal – other than another opinion, such as “you’re stupid.” I'm not sure how we strayed into free speech. The question is more about shock and awe, bombing and invasion, and regime change.