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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (183826)	9/19/2001 3:40:12 PM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Link to Jane's Who did it story.... janes.com

To: Srexley who wrote (183826)	9/19/2001 4:20:18 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

jccc.afis.osd.mil A megabyte of America. There has formed over the years a critical mass of Islamic extremists that have adopted a view that America as the leading culture of Western civilization is Satan. Their perverted view has been adopted widely in Islamic countries. To many there terrorist can do no evil against the US. The limited support we get from governments in this area is because of the thinking of a large number of the folks there. There are also many good people there. But the evil content are ruling now in fact or intimidation. A large number of the people in Islamic countries have no problem with the terror visited upon America. The only long term solution is to eliminate all people who think this way and create true democracies in all Islamic countries. All dictators and theocracies should be destroyed however over time. I don't advocate massive military attacks. But direct focused attacks and covert operations. This is the war that has to be fought. I have no doubt that we will make enemies no matter how well we only take out those who are guilty. There is always wheat that is loss in the killing of the weeds. But over time the only solution is to be quick to make the evil dead. I wish this were not so. But I don't see any realistic alternative. A fester of hate has grown to large in Islamic countries and many of those of the new rich are radicals with vacant evil minds. They don't understand America or Americans or working together and tolerance. There is plague and it must be burned out. This is the way it is. It can't be burned out with nukes. But I believe the President will make the best choices possible to destroy this evil peril. tom watson tosiwmee

To: Srexley who wrote (183826)	9/19/2001 5:08:03 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Regarding Srexley's three points, and your answers to them: 1) "Take out the parties responsible..." >>> Naturally, to do less would invite further attacks. It would lose us even more in the world than attacking will. 2) "It was the US that built up Iraq..." <"True", and "sensible" were your comments> >>> Yes this was true, but No, it was not sensible... unless you believe in counter-productive, ultimately futile actions. This action ignored the basic schism in Islam (did we believe these religious differences were magically going to go away?) It was taken at the time so that we "would be seen as doing something", and to "protect the oil", but our flawed geopolitical outlook... our very short-sightedness doomed our actions. We "created our own monster" (or, at least, made him much more dangerous). Just as - by halting our drive on Baghdad at the demand of the Saudis' in the final days of Desert Storm - we erased whatever gains we had made, and allowed the game to go to many more innings. See my post 180616, and some of the responses, for background. 3) "It was the US that built up the Taliban against the USSR." <"True", and "sensible" were your comments> >>> Also true, though whether "sensible" may still be in the balance. Perhaps here the US's lack of foresight can be more easily explained... up to a point. I think our failure was committed later, in the policies that we followed after the Soviet withdrawal. It may be said that the last place in the world where the US re-drew it's foreign and military policy after the end of the Cold War was in South Asia. Some problems, if left untended, fester and grow worse. Finally, regarding Srexley's comment: "Afterwards we need to get the hell out of these tribal disputes and stop giving them money"... These are actually fairly wise words. Frequently, it seems, the very weight of our involvement in many areas of the world spins things against our own long-term interests. Not just in the middle east, but also in the other "Americas", in southern Asia, etc., wherever we are free to meddle without the American public paying much more than cursory attention. It is hard to think of one occasion in the 20th. century where we have installed or propped up a totalitarian dictator against the desires of their own populace, where it hasn't come back to burn us. Maybe we shouldn't be in the dictator propping-up game? I believe we best serve our own interests when we promote fair and free trade, encourage democracy, and advance our own economy through innovation and scientific advancement... and isn't this the reason so trumpeted for encouraging the fall of communism? The "shining light on the hill" parable? The entire world yearning to be free and prosperous? Not so effective, is when we prop up dictators (against the world's evolution towards, and our own desire for, democracy) simply because we believe the "dictator-of-the-day" will advance the short-term interests of our "own" trans-national businesses. Perhaps it is this dicotomy in our actions (the tension between the old "what is good for GM [or Big Oil] is good for the US" and our push for "democracy, free trade, and individual liberties") that stymies us at so many turns.... We tend to "cancel ourselves out" of effecting the lasting changes that are in our own best interests. Perhaps it is fore-ordained that - until the Age of Oil draws to a close in 40 or 50 years - we will forever be opposing our own best interests, too much constrained by our policy divisions.