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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (7809)	10/30/2001 10:54:27 AM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23908

But it is either us or them.>>> How about Gus? He is neither "us or them", what would happen to Gus? <gg>

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (7809)	10/30/2001 11:36:11 AM
From: Ben Wa	Respond to of 23908

from the NY Times Drilling for Tolerance October 30, 2001 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN In April 1988 Saudi Arabia asked the U.S. to withdraw its newly appointed ambassador, Hume Horan, after only six months. News reports said King Fahd just didn't like the U.S. envoy. What the Saudis didn't like about him, though, was that he was the best Arabic speaker in the State Department, and had used his language skills to engage all kinds of Saudis, including the kingdom's conservative religious leaders who were critical of the ruling family. The Saudis didn't want someone so adroit at penetrating their society, so - of course - we withdrew Mr. Horan. Ever since then we've been sending non-Arabic-speaking ambassadors to Riyadh - mostly presidential cronies who knew exactly how to penetrate the White House but didn't have a clue how to penetrate Saudi Arabia. Yes sir, we got the message: As long as the Saudis kept the oil flowing, what they taught in their schools and mosques was not our business. And what we didn't know wouldn't hurt us. Well, on Sept. 11 we learned just how wrong that view was. What we didn't know hurt us very badly. On Sept. 11 we learned all the things about Saudi Arabia that we didn't know: that Saudi Arabia was the primary funder of the Taliban, that 15 of the hijackers were disgruntled young Saudis and that Saudi Arabia was allowing fund-raising for Osama bin Laden - as long as he didn't use the money to attack the Saudi regime. And most of all, we've learned about Saudi schools. As this newspaper recently reported from Riyadh, the 10th-grade textbook for one of the five required religion classes taught in all Saudi public schools states: "It is compulsory for the Muslims to be loyal to each other and to consider the infidels their enemy." This hostile view of non-Muslims, which is particularly pronounced in the strict Saudi Wahhabi brand of Islam, is reinforced through Saudi sermons, TV shows and the Internet. There is something wrong with this picture: Since Sept. 11, the president of the United States has given several speeches about how Islam is a tolerant religion, with no core hostility to the West. But the leader of Saudi Arabia, the keeper of the Muslim Holy places, hasn't given one. The truth is, there are at least two sides to Saudi Arabia, but we've pretended that there's only one. There is the wealthy Saudi ruling family and upper middle classes, who send their kids to America to be educated and live Western-style lives abroad and behind the veil at home. And there is an Islamist element incubating religious hostility toward America and the West, particularly among disaffected, unemployed Saudi youth. It is said that truth is the first victim of war. Not this war. In the war of Sept. 11, we've been the first victims of our own inability to tell the truth - to ourselves and to others. It's time now to tell the truth. And the truth is that with the weapons of mass destruction that are now easily available, how governments shape the consciousness, mentality and imagination of their young people is no longer a private matter. We now have two choices: First, we can decide that the Saudi ruling family really is tolerant, strong and wants to be part of the solution, and thus we can urge its members to educate their children differently and ensure that fund-raising in their society doesn't go to people who want to destroy ours. If so, I don't expect the Saudis to teach their kids to love America or embrace non-Muslim religions. But if countries want good relations with us, then they have to know that whatever religious vision they teach in their public schools we expect them to teach the "peaceful" realization of that vision. All U.S. ambassadors need to make that part of their brief. Because if tolerance is not made universal, then coexistence is impossible. But such simple tolerance of other faiths is precisely what Saudi Arabia has not been teaching. If the Saudis cannot or will not do that, then we must conclude that the Saudi ruling family is not really on our side, and we should move quickly to lessen our dependence upon it. I was for radical energy conservation, getting rid of gas-guzzlers and reducing oil imports before Sept. 11 - but I feel even more strongly about it now. "Either we get rid of our minivans or Saudi Arabia gets rid of its textbooks," says Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy specialist. "But one thing we know for sure - it's dangerous to go on assuming that the two can coexist." my conclusion: screw Saudi Arabia, start a Manhattan project for controlled nuclear fusion power plants.

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (7809)	10/30/2001 11:57:32 AM
From: Copperfield	Respond to of 23908

I can see your point but ultimatly a nuclear weapon expecially the low yield bunker busting variety is just a large bomb. The first one used would enrage Moslems all over the world expecially in Pakistan. Russia, China, GB, France, Isreal, India and Pakistan would go to high nuclear alert. Nuclear weapons sound like the ultimate stick but don't forget that the US exploded hundreds in Nevada and Las Vegas is still there. Likewise with the Soviet test sites in Kazakhstan. The United States had fought a long conventional war with Japan before they used the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. What might follow after the use of a bomb against the Teliban is a a long conventional terrorist war against the United States with little coalition support. The worst case scenario would be a limited and possible large nuclear war by states in the region. Wars were once fought by armies. They basically agreed to meet somewhere, had a big battle and the side that had the most standing won. A decade ar so later the sides usually normalized relations, like Britian has with Argentina and we now are doing with Russia. We will have to live with Moslems regardless the course of the war. Sometimes its better to have relations like the US now have with Vietnam, where nuclear weapons could have been used, than to have simmering decades long hatred and animosity. I agree that there is good reason to fight terrorists but ultimatly you reap what you sew.