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: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 2:50:39 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

I think the Onion picked up on that theme first. U.S. Vows To Defeat Whoever It Is We're At War With theonion.com

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 2:52:11 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

A piece of presumptuous arrogance.

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 3:15:51 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Respond to of 281500

. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to support that claim. Uh, what has this man been smoking? The case has been outlined in great detail. Here is a copy: Message 16457103 And second, to assume that The Enemy's motives are what the US government says they are, and there's nothing to support that either. Come again? Perhaps this man has not heard of the unequivocal and specific fatwa Mr. Bin Laden issued against the United States and its allies, calling for mass murder of the innocent. Again, here is a copy already published at SI many times: Message 16346390 Could it be that the stygian anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite things - to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)? So a crime against humanity, against thousands who are not responsible for US government policy, is now acceptable and worthy of understanding? They can't possibly doubt that they themselves, their extraordinary musicians, their writers, their actors, their spectacular sportsmen and their cinema, are universally welcomed. In fact, last I heard the Taliban imprisons anyone who watches television or listens to the radio. Then again, maybe they do make an exception while executing women for wearing lipstick in that new stadium the West built, murdering helpless females to the tune of, "Another One Bites the Dust." And for our pains, for our bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced. This is pathetic. Sounds to me like a thinly veiled threat of universal violence. Let's see, sorry we had the bad timing to have 6,000 people murdered at an inopportune time. In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. Actually, those children are starving in droves because Saddam Hussein has siphoned off every last penny the country has to alternatively build 40 palaces, fill offshore accounts to the tune of $10 billion, launch an outlawed weapons of mass destruction program, in an effort to blackmail peaceful nations, and to feed his criminal and repressive escort of Republican Guards. Skipping quite a bit of verbal refuse and we come to the conclusion of this inane rant: President Bush's ultimatum to the people of the world - "If you're not with us, you're against us" - is a piece of presumptuous arrogance. It's not a choice that people want to, need to, or should have to make. Those who wish to make the choice of explicitly targeting innocent civilians for murder, for whatever reason, are certainly against us, as they are against all of civilization. This is not arrogance but progress. Or shall we return to life as it was 50,000 years ago? I fear that this is exactly what the terrorists would wish. They won't get it.

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 3:32:25 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

thank you for posting that, what an incredibly frank in your face editorial, he flat out read my mind<g>

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 3:39:34 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

CIMA Good post. Its from the Guardian, a left wing newspaper in the UK. It attempts to solidify the thinking of the left wing, liberal brigade here. It's an illuminating read on that point. So the USA is bad and responsible for most of the suffering on earth as they are better off then every one else theme. Sounds like a good theme to pick up some approving head nodding amongst it's target audience. Some of those idiots ought to spend a little time in the USA, see the guys with the "will work for food" signs as you drive out of the local supermarket imho, or maybe get a job there and ask for a day off and see what happens. The article utter B/S of course. Unfortunately WAR is indeed amongst us, and we don't like the idea at all. Not surprising. The anti fox hunting bill may get pushed back a bit. ---just my view -g-

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 5:36:21 PM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. a breathtaking leap of assumption upon which the entire piece is built. It goes in my, "Sorry, but you had it coming" file... --fl

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 5:51:02 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

What we're witnessing here is the spectacle of the world's most powerful country reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a new kind of war. I disagree with the author of that article. If that were the case some places in Asia would/could have been A-bombed by now. America is IMO, showing tremendous restraint, to be able to nail the real perpetrators. cheers, kumar

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 6:11:34 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

America is at war against people it doesn't know, because they don't appear much on TV Wouldnt be a bad idea to provide equal time to the other side to present their case. In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". Once again we dont see these children on TV and our govnmnt knows it.So who cares. In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) launched the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. Their purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilise it. When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to be much more than that. Over the years, mojahedin from 40 Islamic countries as soldiers for America'through the ISI, the CIA funded and recruited almost 100,000 radical s proxy war. The rank and file of the mojahedin were unaware that their jihad was actually being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam. (The irony is that America was equally unaware that it was financing a future war against itself.) India, thanks in part to its geography, and in part to the vision of its former leaders, has so far been fortunate enough to be left out of this Great Game. Had it been drawn in, it's more than likely that our democracy, such as it is, would not have survived. Today, as some of us watch in horror, the Indian government is furiously gyrating its hips, begging the US to set up its base in India rather than Pakistan. Having had this ringside view of Pakistan's sordid fate, it isn't just odd, it's unthinkable, that India should want to do this. Any third world country with a fragile economy and a complex social base should know by now that to invite a superpower such as America in (whether it says it's staying or just passing through) would be like inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen. Its like asking the mafia to help you get rid of aneighborhood bully thats been givingyou a hard time. The thing India shuld remember is that the mafia may one day want a favor in exchange and that favor may make India do things worse than the neighborhood gangster.

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 6:12:05 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

These two play off against each other very nicely don't you think? --fl ------------- The algebra of infinite justice As the US prepares to wage a new kind of war, Arundhati Roy challenges the instinct for vengeance ------------ WING WITH NO PRAYER The Agony of the Left Message 16460220 Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, some have trouble deciding. BY ANDREW SULLIVAN

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/5/2001 8:49:39 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sour grapes from a leftist who laments the Soviet Union's failure in Afghanistan and subsequent downfall.

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/6/2001 12:55:19 AM
From: snerd	Respond to of 281500

The world will probably never know what motivated those particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American buildings. Where has this guy been? Here, I'll give you a few of their motivations.......... evil, hate, brainwashing, 72 virgins. Nothing "rational" that you would think of as being motivational. But of course that can't be, because people like that just couldn't exist, now could they? That would be just too difficult to accept in your politically-correct touchy-feely little world, wouldn't it? Typical left blathering, hidden among a long-winded discourse of many fancy words. Instinct for vengeance? No, a moral duty to attempt to rid the world of creatures like these. Yeah, the good 'ole US of A will once again take the lead, as the philosophers and column-writers and other nations of the world sit on their a$$es and try to hinder it from start to finish. Same song, different verse. These guys have already told us what they want.......... America the great satan destroyed, along with all the other free western cultures. They hate me, they hate you. They want to kill me, they want to kill you. Others can figure out the world's problems at a later time; at this particular time, these screwballs have to go. Let's Roll.

To: CIMA who wrote (2806)	10/6/2001 1:14:06 AM
From: epsteinbd	Respond to of 281500

In trying to understand what Arundhati Roy thinks is the best fit US policy, and however a good writer he is, he provides no plan to achieve this besides more food, money and no ammunitions to the bad guys on earth, hoping they will turn good. He has all the possible excuses for terrorists acts, the Saddam's kids dying versus Allbright comments, etc. But it falls short, as every attack on US interests or people is understandable if not acceptable, because they are wealthy, because they didn't share enough. But he asks not who else did ? Funny enough he doesn't try to excuse the Yamamoto gambit. The needed land, just as Germany did. Wasn't that acceptable too ? The aftermath of WWII has taught us that the failed destinies of nations can change for the better. But it takes a lots of good guys, war energy, time and also the courage from those that finally rise from the dead.