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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219585)	2/19/2007 7:10:15 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That depends. If you set some good clear rules, and whack people to death when they violate them, people won't mess with you too much. I think most countries know that if they use a nuclear device (for example) they can expect to be bombed into a glassine state. A steel hand in a velvet glove is not usually construed as soft. What we have a problem with (imo) is articulating clear rules of engagement that the rest of the world understand. With toddlers and with countries clarity is important, but to have clarity you must know what you want, and be able to articulate it, and I'm not sure we are there yet. There will also be small cases of "messing" (apparently- if the examples you gave were your idea of messing) regardless of the laid backness of the president, and regardless of who the president is, and probably regardless of rules- if you want to throw in non-state actors. I have not seen Bush's bully boy methodology garner much that is positive for the US in the international affairs arena.