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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (29573)	9/26/2001 12:18:06 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm not sure that any of the Arab dictatorships are likely to become democracies (prickly or not) soon. Exactly my point. Support the dictator, allow him to drive out all moderate opposition, and ultimately the only ones left opposing him will be the extremists ready to face death. And history recently has shown us that these guys often win... and they may not be best friends with the funder of their oppressor It's hard to tell your pet Shah, or Noriega, or whatever, that if he doesn't back off NOW you're going to take away all his toys - and enforce that. It's embarrassing, for one thing... suddenly the whole world finds out about some nasty secrets about what you've been doing. You don't have free rein for covert ops, or destabilising neighbours; maybe your military bases cost more; and short-term, you won't still win many friends. If OTOH you start out by encouraging the growth of a middle class, you get a class keen on its own freedom - on education, improvement, trade, and stability; with a stake to preserve, rather than nothing to lose; and from this, history seems to be telling us that you evolve a democracy. Even if that means not allowing your pet to wipe out trade unionists and awkward dissidents and other people you don't much like on the way: opposition is part of being a democracy. Even if it means tolerating a government that once created may grow up and criticise you - hey, isn't that the fate of parents anyway? They probably won't attack you, either: when was the last time two Western-style democracies fought each other?

To: TimF who wrote (29573)	9/26/2001 12:32:40 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If the IRA crashed a plane into Canary Wharf and the Irish government supported and sheltered the IRA before and after the attack and named an IRA leader to an inportant government post then I think British military oporations on Irish soil would be justified. Ireland isn't harbouring the IRA in the same way that the Taliban is harbouring Al Qaida. Hmm. The IRA call themselves an army. THey've killed about 350 civilians, I believe, and about 130 troops. Thousands wounded. They were, until the most recent steps in the peace process (now blocked by the IRA refusing to consider disarming), explicitly supported by the Irish constutution, laying claim to NI. [Heaven only knows why]. They've bombed the British Cabinet, in government; they've assassinated members of the Royal Family (what would Bush do if his uncle were explicitly killed by Bin Laden, pray?); bombed the Baltic Exchange - smaller than WTC, but the same purpose and symbolism; and bombed a Remembrance Day ceremony, among others. And they've been explicitly sheltered and funded from Eire, with the connivance if not the active aid of state officials. They've also been funded and armed by Libya, Syria and the USSR, among others. We've got proof of all these. They've boasted of most of them. Way, way more evidence than you have against Bin Laden, still less the Taliban, or for war against Afghanistan itself. So, will you back us when we go in 'unilaterally'? BTW, the US refuses to extradite IRA, ETA and Israeli terrorists wanted for murder - one Israeli is wanted for killing two Irish UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, he's now living happily in Denver - this gonna change any time soon? Or is it only terrorists who kill Americans that get you keen on justice and in favour of revenge?

To: TimF who wrote (29573)	9/26/2001 12:51:32 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Unilateral action is entirely justified. Al Qaida attacked the US. The Taliban not only fails to try to control Al Qaida or prevent them from using their territory, but actually supports and protects Al Qaida and allies itself with Al Qaida. You miss my point. Do you support the use of force - GOING TO WAR - against one country by any other, when the first has an unfriendly regime and is probably sheltering someone possibly and allegedly responsible for terrorist acts? (Bearing in mind that given the state of Afghanistan the Taliban, it seems, are in little position to control Bin Laden even if they wanted to). Or is it OK when the attacking country is stronger? Or is it only OK if it's the US doing the attacking - but it's OK for the US to 'shelter' whoever it likes? BTW, the US harbours known and wanted terrorists against Western democracies and has refused to extradite them - even given warrants and proof. Fact. It's done so for IRA bombers in the 80's. For ETA and extremist Israeli terrorists, now. US government officials - congressmen, senators - have spoken for them and backed them. Also this attack was deadly on a scale that none of the IRA attacks have ever been. Oh, right. So there's a minimum death quota now before you can act against terrorists? "Oh, Mr Khadaffi, your men killed less than 1000 when they took down Pan Am 179, that's not enough for any reprisals so we'll let you off with a caution?" LOL. Yeah. The blank cheque you are giving is for any government which thinks it's strong enough to remove any other. All it needs is for the second to harbour someone hostile to the first, and refuse to extradite them without what it considers satisfactory proof. Think about it...