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: Bilow who wrote (16647)	1/17/2002 9:08:08 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The barbary pirates treaty was adhered to because the US Marines went to Tripoli and did a serious number. They went because the pirates broke an earlier arrangement and tried extortion instead. They kept the treaty because it was made with a leader who would keep his word (and he didn't want to see the marines). The super power can't be non interfering because the world won't let it be. It's not possible to "make peace" with likes of Hussein or Arafat because they won't keep an agreement. They aren't the first political figures of this sort as the history of the 20th century demonstrates. The reason the US supports Israel is because, in the final analysis, it's a US type country and the US will have no credibility at all if its doesn't support one of it's own. The US knows the problem in the middle east: It's really bad leaders and in many cases their flaws are now magnified by the stupid arrangments they've made with extremist elements. The fallout from this arrived 9/11. Previously, the fallout was Desert Storm. Oil was there and obscured the principle agreed to in the UN Charter: Wars of conquest aren't on any more. US was onside with the angels with that one. Islamist mullahs do say it's not necessary to abide by treaties signed with non-moslems because yada yada just like Nadine says. The totalitarian religious nutsos and totalitarian secularists of the region are all dangerous to everybody including the US. Very perilous to do nothing about them. From what I see of your posts today including the one ahead, you want to ship on the superpower train but you don't want to pay the freight. Part of the freight includes the Darwin tariff. The best wins. They are the best because they win. (I'm well aware of the peculiarities of that formulation). Right now, the winners are reasonably capitalistic democracies. They better keep winning and they won't do that unless they deal with the big competition - totalitarianism: Straight up, as in Iraq; theologically flavoured, as in Iran; sneaking in the back door, as in Pakistan and India; masquerading as monarchy, as in Saudi Arabia. They aren't sitting still and neither should the US. Darwinian windows only open for so long. Let me see now. Replace the Hussein family and the Baathists with a democratic regime in Iraq and it will destabilize the region, some folk say. I ask them, so what's your point? The Iranian regime is our enemy, and the Saudis despise us and finance movements which not only destabilize our friends but attack us directly. The mullahs and the House of Saud have had a good run. They can retire to villas in Switzerland and the Riviera or homes for retired clergy. Dividend from this is that most of the weapons flowing to the Palestinians would dry up and there would be a chance they and the Israelis might come to an arrangement, finally. The mindless objection is always, "Who's going to replace Saddam?" The answer, of course, is the Iraqi people, that's who. It's not so hard. The country has a civil service, an army, civilian police force, schools, universities, civil code, already. Clean out the Baath party, the internal security criminals, reform the army, administer the country soundly for a couple of years while the political folk sort themselves into a reasonable number of parties, have elections, and enjoy the panic in certain neighboring areas. A modest program like this is far safer than than over done Foggy Bottom 'diplomatic initiatives' which only grow contempt in Husseins and Sauds. Superpower can't have contempt must have respect.

To: Bilow who wrote (16647)	1/17/2002 1:41:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

don't read the Arab press, so I have no idea how truthfully they portray it. You admit that you don't read anything in the Arab press, yet you presume to judge that MEMRI is untruthful, biased, and dedicated to causing trouble between the US and Arabs. I'm sure that with a good internet search tool I can find websites in the US where equally vile comments are made by our own Neo-nazis. Of course you can. But you won't find their sentiments printed daily in a major daily newspaper like The Washington Post. Al Ahram is a major daily newspaper in Egypt, not a crackpot newsletter. Al Ahram is also government controlled; opinions that Mubarak does not approve of are not published there. How do you argue with someone who admits perfect ignorance, yet thinks he's competent to judge everything anyway? But the important thing to note is that if your biased view of Moslems were true, then it is not possible for Israel to make a permanent peace with Arafat. Not all Muslims. Those who buy into the totalitarian Islamist philosophy, like Hamas, or those who started out as secular dictators and are now in hock to the Islamists, like Arafat. Secular Muslim states sign treaties and keep them like other states. Israel has signed permanent peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and all sides have kept the deal. If Mubarak ever breaks the deal, it won't be for religious reasons.

To: Bilow who wrote (16647)	1/27/2002 5:01:13 AM
From: blankmind	Respond to of 281500

Bilow, you ask a good question: "In that case, why is Israel misrepresenting that they want a permanent peace that involves freedom for Palestine? If the Israelis truly believe that Moslems can't sign a permanent peace with Israel, why is Israel pretending to negotiate one?" - IMHO it's b/c liberals are so high-minded that they can't take their own side in argument. Mostly Israel politicians, including Sharon, are all liberals. The few non-liberals, such as those in the Kahane Chai movement, are barred from even running in elections