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: Hawkmoon who wrote (184629)	4/5/2006 2:27:48 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I firmly believe diplomatic and economic efforts should be first. However, those efforts MUST BE BACKED BY CREDIBLE MILITARY FORCE when intransigent regimes insist on violating regional or global stability. I believe in credible deterrence, but not adventurism. This is why I firmly believed the US was justified in bringing down Iraq (as I've oft stated in previous posts). We had the moral and legal authority of UNSC 1441, obtained via multi-lateral discussion and authority via the UNSC. We differ there. But once in that situation, we should not hesitate to exercise it. To do so only reveals us as a paper tiger and unworthy of the lofty values we pretend to advance. The problem with that approach is that it generates the problem. As long as any third-world group of people sees the US throwing its military might around the globe, they have a cause to oppose us. It is really that simple. It's not just an Islamic problem. Tim McViegh was one of us, and he did it because of his views on the BATF & FBI wrt to right-wing gun nuts. It seems almost genetic that people do not like a single all powerful entity forcing its will on them, be its intentions ever so good.