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.

Pastimes : AMAT Off-Topic Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (637)	4/10/2002 3:30:15 PM
From: BWAC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Cause then the Demon Shrub would not have a war story to take the focus off the economy story and he'd be perceived as the 2nd incarnation of incompetence that he is.

To: michael97123 who wrote (637)	4/10/2002 5:11:29 PM
From: Jerome	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

>>>Why cant the US, Israel, GB take out el quaida, pal terror, and iraq without any help. <<< For these possible reasons... 1) Support for these actions is not strong in GB 2) Sharon's power base in Israel is far from secure. 3) The opinion in the US is to bring Israel under control (as much as possible) 4) Individually the Moslem countries are no match for the US, but collectively they could cause major problems. 5) The one thing that we do not want to see happen is now taking place. Uniformity of opinion against us by all Moslem nations. Sharon by his policies has unified the Arab world to an unthinkable extent. The two most hated persons in the ME are ARAFAT and SHARON. If they are taken out of the equation then perhaps the underlings can find some reason and area to compromise. I think that if Sharon ran for public office in the US, he would prior to the election antagonize every voter segment that could be identified. JMO

To: michael97123 who wrote (637)	4/10/2002 9:08:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

re: Why cant the US, Israel, GB take out el quaida, pal terror, and iraq without any help: To Jerome's list, I would add: 6. Access. We require Muslim allies, to give us access to the battlefield. If Muslim Pakistan, and the Muslim former-USSR Central Asian nations, hadn't allowed us to use their territory, we could not have changed the Afghan government. 7. Information. Satellites are not enough. We require locals, on the ground, to tell us where our targets are. If we don't get that help, we can't find the targets. Which is why the Taliban and Al Queda leaders still elude us. Without information from locals, our enemies can hide forever, in the rugged countryside, and the teeming cities. So, unfortunately, having Muslim allies is an absolute requirement, if we are going to win this WarOnTerrorism. If we don't get allies, then our enemies will have safe havens. And you can't win a war against a guerilla army who has a safe haven, and who can't be separated from their civilian base of support. As we learned the hard way, in Vietnam. In the 1990 war, we were able to finesse the Palestinian issue. It was really a spectacular diplomatic achievement, to get Syrian soldiers fighting beside us, against another Arab nation, while we sent Patriot batteries to defend Israel, a nation that Syria has been at war with, continuosly, since 1948. Bush-the-Younger doesn't look able to finesse this issue, in his war.