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: jttmab who wrote (190124)	6/26/2006 2:00:33 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Dubya is the President of the United States. He sets foreign policy. And Congress has no role? Are you trying to tell me that Bush can carry out his FP, beyond his permissions under the War Powers Act, without approval of the Congress?? Come on now... Really? So you were a strong proponent of nation building before Dubya came into office? I'm a strong proponent of using our economic and political power to "encourage" political reform in the Mid-East. But I'm not opposed to "nation-building" when I think it serves our global interests and it can have a potential positive reforming influence on other surrounding nations. Iraq was a special case since Saddam's regime was under UN sanctions due to its invasion of Kuwait. There was international authority to "use all necesssary means" to force Saddam to comply, including overthrowing his regime and occupying Iraq. After all, this is what should have happened in 1991. We don't have similar international legal authority to force political change upon other countries in the region (as desirable as that might be). All because the fascist from Crawford leads you around by the nose with catchy little phrases. Sylvester.. are you using jttmab's account again?? You think the leaders and people of the mid-east are sitting there yearning for the model of democracy that Iraq offers? Well, apparently there are millions of muslims living in the US who have no problem with democracy.. But I know there are quite a few Iraqis, and other citizens in the Mid-East who desire political progressiveness. But they are blocked from such reformist changes due to EXISTING governmental resistance, AS WELL AS the threat of religious extremists. Progressive political thinking is not a product of a brutish and reactionary human psyche. It's the product of education, compromise, and human tolerance. Do a search for "progressive Islam" and see what pops up. There IS a movement for transforming the current form of repressive Islam with political progressiveness and religious tolerance. It's funny... my father has been reading an historical account of the American Revolution called "A Leap in the Dark". Now my father, bless his heart, doesn't possess much knowledge of early American history, but he's been spending much of the past couple of days remarking about how astonished he was to discover that most colonialists didn't want democracy either. In fact, most didn't want to leave the British Empire (only possess more autonomy from it). So why is that, 200 years later, we've surived as a democratic republic, and been the inspiration for democratic change in so many other parts of the world? If you'd asked the British King in 1787 whether that new country known as the US would survive as a nation/state, most of them would have laughed at you in derision. There's no objections by you to the signing statements by Bush that claims the laws don't apply to the Administration. If it's done under the congressional authorization to use force, then NO. Congress always has the right to nullify that authorization. Hawk