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: frankw1900 who wrote (29418)	5/13/2002 3:05:44 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900; That's a hell of a lot of questions in response to a short comment [Over the long term, the Islamic fundamentalists are not a threat to this country.] Re: "What's long term?" Anytime from the next day to the next thousand years. Re: "Will lack of freedom of movement through the world be in US interests?" Lack of freedom of movement through the world is not in US interest, but on the other hand, neither is it a threat to the US. It's a threat to countries that are more dependant on foreign trade etc. Re: "Is an Islamist nation holding WMDs in US interests?" No. But the US has no borders with any country that could possibly become "islamist", so the US is not a country that is threatened by islamist WMDs. While it is theoretically possible for an Islamist country to nuke the US, there is no reason on earth for them to do so, except to the extent that we get in their faces. The real threat of islamist WMDs is to the countries that are their neighbors. As Afghanistan demonstrated, attacking the US is a great way to get your nation taken apart by the US. Re: "Is the continued financing by Saudis of islamist institutions in N america and Europe in US interests?" It's not a serious threat to this country, except to the extent that we get involved in Middle Eastern affairs. If you stir up a hornet's nest, you have to expect to get stung. Re: "Is the conjoining of religious and political institutions in many countries in US interests?" BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! No such conjoining is possible. If you put more than a handful of islamists into the same room at the same time a gunfight will erupt between them. Re: "Is the continued, unremitting islamist encouragement to kill US men, women and children in US interests?" Of course not. But our problems with this sort of thing are largely created by our one sided intervention in the Middle East. Re: "Is the continued unremitting islamist attack on democracy every where in US interests?" No it's not in the US interest, but it is also not a threat to the US. The countries where democracy is realistically threatened by islamists are countries where Moslems are in majority. The US is not such a country, nor are our neighbors, nor are our principle trading partners, other than for oil. And it would be easier for us to get that oil without our disastrous middle east policy. I'll respond to the rest of your comments in a separate post, as it is largely a change of topic from islamists to eco freaks. -- Carl

To: frankw1900 who wrote (29418)	5/13/2002 3:32:48 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900; Re: "The extreme eco freaks are certainly ethically nasty people in a manner similar to the islamists and potentially could be a greater threat to everyone than the islamists, but right now it's the islamist ideological freaks who're causing grief to the US and everyone else." The problem with the eco freaks is that they are living in a "reality" based upon assumptions about the world and its purpose that are at counter purposes to every living human on the planet. Yes, the islamists would like to kill the non believers, but they have no particular desire to kill their own. By contrast, it is an inevitable consequence of deep ecological beliefs that the world would be better without most of the people. What's worse, this belief is widely taught in school. I've had nephews and nieces comment that they weren't going to have any kids when they grew up because we are all going to die from overpopulation. (This bullshit has been around since 1800 when Malthus wrote his article, but the world is healthier and better fed now than it ever has been before.) It's not that every ecology lover has the mindset of a mass murderer. But it's equally true that not every Muslim has the mindset of a mass murderer. And while the Islamists extremists would like to kill (or more precisely wouldn't mind killing) all unbelievers, they would be equally content to merely convert the unbelievers to their beliefs. By contrast, the deep ecology freaks would simply prefer a world where most humans were dead. For the present, there are more Moslems than eco freaks. But the eco freaks are growing in population at a rate much higher than the Moslems. Who will be the problem in the year 2100? I have no doubt that Islam will be waning by then; I'd worry more about the eco freaks. In addition, the eco freaks are the problem in the developed world where resources and knowledge are so much more easily available. It is the developed world where bioweapons of mass destruction can be created. All it takes is one scientist at one biotech company. Islamic beliefs are in large part contradictory to scientific and technological progress. The countries where Islam is prevalent are more backwards (but not entirely backwards). By contrast, eco freakism is an extremist religion of the more technologically advanced nations. The primary threat to the species is from technologically advanced threats, not from a couple guys flying planes into buildings. The Islamists can be negotiated with. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that an Islamist nation came into possession of 3000 nuclear warheads and a complete set of ballistic missiles to threaten the US with. In this case, (1) You can negotiate with them. I would guess that the Iraq sanctions would be history, and we'd probably have to leave Israel alone. At worst, we might have to agree to mandatory Islamic education in our grade schools. But you can negotiate with them. By contrast, with the deep ecological believers, there purpose is not your "submission", but instead your death. There is no negotiation possible, not under any circumstances. (2) You can threaten to annihilate the Moslems in return. (This, by the way, is why even if an Islamist country did come into possession of 3000 nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles to launch them, they still wouldn't be able to force the US to teach Islam to grade school kids.) Since the deep ecologists are fundamentally suicidal, it is impossible to threaten them. They see death as a service to Gaia. The problem that the Jewish people had with Hitler was that it was not possible to negotiate with him. There was nothing that they could do to satisfy his desire to kill them all. This is the sort of mindset that those who would like to see the world depopulated have. And by contrast, at least we could threaten Hitler with annihilation. Eco freakism is growing faster than Islam. For example, the Green party is now a major force in Germany. While the average Green party member is peaceful, so is the average Islamist. The problem in both cases is the radical fringes of the movements. Instead of talking about a disease that would wipe out the human population (or 90%), if you want to delve deep into the thinking of the ecological types, ask them about their opinions of a disease that would make 90% of the world's population sterile. You'd probably get a lot of support for that one. My own observation on these people is that they tend to be rather racist. They understand that racism is a bad thing, but if you can get a couple beers into them, and get them onto the topic of "which races are breeding like bunnies and why", they'll put Archie Bunker quite to shame. -- Carl