Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: paul_philp who wrote (32239)	6/12/2002 11:33:07 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Hi paul_philp; Rather than attack the states whose populations are intent on destroying the US, the US is instead attacking the states whose leadership is currently on the US $h:t list. So Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other states whose nationals leveled the WTC get off easy, while Iraq, which apparently had nothing to do with it, gets the attack. I know that this sounds somewhat weird. A country like Pakistan which is riddled with Al Qaeda elements is on the US list of close allies, while Iraq, which probably summarily executes those same Al Qaeda are on the enemies list. Perhaps a better explanation is that the US can do almost nothing to change the personal beliefs of individuals even in the United States, much less in countries like Saudi Arabia. The same applies to the leadership in those countries. One or two men can do little to change public opinion. So US policy is to reward countries whose leadership are leaning towards the US (relative to the country's public opinion, which is an independent variable), and punish those whose leadership are pulling against. Put this way it makes a certain amount of sense. -- Carl

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next