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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (5498)	12/13/2006 1:11:56 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

"In principle we hear both sides of the current world conflict declaring an interest in the same things (truth, justice, and morally decent living). This is what Westerners mean when they use the terms freedom through democracy. This is what Islamisists are thinking when they use the word Jihad. When Westerners hear the word ‘Jihad’ they hear a terrorist style of massive death threats. When radical Islam hears the word Democracy they hear a colonialistic threat to their autonomy." Lemme see if I understand you correctly -- are you saying that if the US stops beating the drum for democracy, and instead declares jihad on the Middle East, all the problems will go away? We will then be using a term understood by those radical groups and we can begin to hold hands and work together toward a prosperous and stable region of the world? Personally, I'm more of the opinion the the West has tried mightily to resolve differences in that region peacefully, only to be rebuffed and confronted with a solid wall of intransigence.

To: one_less who wrote (5498)	12/13/2006 5:37:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Violence, including global violence, often results from the lack of willingness or ability of the participants to communicate effectively. If we don't communicate effectively, then the president or the state department, or other executive bodies aren't doing their job. I don't see why a "department of peace" would do it any better, and it might even be counter productive if it has a different agenda than the rest of the executive branch we would be giving other countries mixed messages. What exactly would be the job function of a department of peace? Most importantly what would it do that current departments aren't doing or can't do?