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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (16780)	1/18/2002 9:19:33 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "You're really going to have to explain how we wound up in Saudi Arabia to protect Israel. ..." Huh? You're putting words in my mouth. Our engagement in the Middle East, part of which is stuff in Saudi Arabia, has the effect of protecting Israel, but that is not the primary objective of it. Nor did I ever say it was. If we were there to protect Israel, I'd suppose that our troops would be in Israel instead of Saudi Arabia, LOL!!! Re: "If we pull out from Saudi Arabia it will be a huge win for Osama Bin Laden." It might be a "win" for someone, but I don't think that Osama is will be in a terribly celebratory mood over it. Re: "You see, my brothers? America may be able to strike back, ... Onward to victory!" Your argument ignores the abject fact that America cleaned the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. How many more victories like that can the fundamentalist Islamics take? Can you really argue that a situation with Afghanistan brought to heel and the US out of Saudi Arabia is an indication of less US power than the situation pre WTC? Of course not. The one government that gave complete support for Al Qaeda is gone. Pakistan is going secular. Re: "This speech may not be deeply connected to reality, ..." This is a very good point, LOL!!! So if this speech isn't connected to reality, why is it important? The fact is that every single Islamic nation (no exceptions) except Afghanistan toed the line. This is known throughout the world. And you're going to worry about some extremists painting this as a defeat for America? Fanatics tend to be rather optimistic and separate themselves from reality very easily. For instance, when Roosevelt died, Hitler had a little party because he thought that the Allies wouldn't be able to keep their alliance without him. So what? You could have written your spiel from the point of view of the Enron collapse indicating the inherent rotteness of America, and it would have made as much sense, and mattered as little. Re: "... but sure as G-d made little green apples, variations of it will be heard through every corner of the Muslim world." Hey! You're not a secret writer for Al Qaeda are you? If you are, then your little prediction has already been made true. As it is, they can say that the Americans in Saudi Arabia are restricted in where they can go, couldn't support operations in Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc., already. The fact is that no matter what happens people will take what they can from it. *What you fail to realize is that keeping "face" is not a US priority.* Our priority, as is that of any bourgeois people, is living safe, cushy lives. We avoid death to the extent that we can. I'm not saying bad things about the US, this is the natural condition of any wealthy people, this is the joy of our success, we don't have to fight. The people in power in the US now were old enough to learn their Vietnam lessons well. Now they have the additional lessons from Afghanistan. Here are some lessons: (1) US power is not infinite. (2) Guerillas can be a real pain. (3) You lose less face if you disengage before you suffer tens of thousands of combat deaths. (4) Face really isn't important anyway. (5) If you are going to take on guerillas, you have to win the hearts and minds of the locals. (6) If you have to take on guerillas, it helps a lot if they're not being supplied by another nation. From the above it should be pretty obvious why the US is disengaging from the Middle East. At the same time, we've made it clear that we won't tolerate countries invading one another. For that reason we will likely guarantee Israel against an attack from a coalition of Moslem nations. But cross border military attack is not Israel's problem. Their problem is internal security. In that, the US cannot give much assistance. -- Carl