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: Win Smith who wrote (21740)	3/19/2002 9:03:10 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What "decentralized movement for multi national genocide" are you talking about, perchance? Israel? Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself. Let's see, an off the top of my head list, (sticking with the experimental murders): Jews in Israel and the middle east, Christians and animists in Nigeria, christian and animists in Sudan, Christians, Jews and Hindus in Pakistan, Christians in Indonesia and Southern Phillipines. And, lest we forget, New Yorkers in NY... All promoted and done by Islamists from, and financed, mostly from Saudi Arabia. Not to mention the persecution and murder of muslims who don't agree with the program - very common in Pakistan and Egypt.. With regard to my 'Fantasy laundry list'. Pakistan is very dangerous and not just to its neighbours - why do you think Daniel Pearl was topped? He was investigating an American story. The context of US realtions with Pakistan years ago is in the context of the cold war with the Soviet Union. That was then. This is now and certain players have shown their hands - I've been posting stories about them for months. The US frightened the stones off Mushareff after 9/11 and he's still having huge difficulties coming to grips with these people - not surprising because he was one of them at a certain point in his career. Same goes for Iraq. We're in 2002, not 1990. Conditions have changed, don't you know? In my post I didn't say the US should do it alone. It's very much in the interests of Russia, NATO, and India to participate. As far as bad countries go, I can't even see the middle east/ Arab / Muslim world as the worst, by worldwide standards. Africa has bigger problems, as near as I can see, with various marginally functional governments ready to disappear into complete chaos and anarchy at a moment's notice. I'm not writing about standard of living. I'm writing about fascism, terrorism and genocide being exported to about a dozen countries The players in many of those pathetic African nations have no interest in establishing a world wide medieval caliphate through the extirpation of the rest of us.Some of them have designs of local genocide to coincide with their local ambitions and acting this out gives reinforcement to the islamists - They see someone doing it.. (And maybe even getting away with it). Compare the level of resources that would be required for the kind of large scale intervention in the middle east/ muslim world with post WWII reconstruction of Europe and the creation of NATO. The resources required would likely be about the same order of magnitude, in the best of circumstances. Except that the middle east would likely be far less favorably inclined to accept a large US military presence peacefully. Europe didn't accept a large Allied military presence peacefully. WW2 came first. The logistical difficulties of invading Iraq are stated as if they're written in stone. They're not - look at a map and ask who finds it really irritating to live with Saddam. Not necessarily easy, politically or logisticly, but not insuperable either. The strongest subsidiary reason for attacking Saddam's regime is that his efforts at acquiring WMD's embolden the islamofascists as he rides along on their rhetoric and as they take comfort from his rhetoric and aid. Iraq would not be a short term commitment and it should not be one, either.