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: paul_philp who wrote (32239)	6/12/2002 11:33:07 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi paul_philp; Rather than attack the states whose populations are intent on destroying the US, the US is instead attacking the states whose leadership is currently on the US $h:t list. So Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other states whose nationals leveled the WTC get off easy, while Iraq, which apparently had nothing to do with it, gets the attack. I know that this sounds somewhat weird. A country like Pakistan which is riddled with Al Qaeda elements is on the US list of close allies, while Iraq, which probably summarily executes those same Al Qaeda are on the enemies list. Perhaps a better explanation is that the US can do almost nothing to change the personal beliefs of individuals even in the United States, much less in countries like Saudi Arabia. The same applies to the leadership in those countries. One or two men can do little to change public opinion. So US policy is to reward countries whose leadership are leaning towards the US (relative to the country's public opinion, which is an independent variable), and punish those whose leadership are pulling against. Put this way it makes a certain amount of sense. -- Carl

To: paul_philp who wrote (32239)	6/13/2002 6:25:12 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

We are going after Iraq not because they are the most threatening target but because we know how to do that. Actually Paul... I have a sense that we're going after Iraq because it will remove one more source of potential support for the eventual regime change to come in Saudi Arabia. Some have noticed that the Saudis have been making "nice-nice" with Saddam since they see him as a potential foil against US agression. Once Iraq falls, Syria will be next and then the Saudis will be completely isolated. At that point they will be forced to repress their Wahabbi zealots or face the potential return of the Hashemites to ruling over the peninsula... At least that's my scenario. We must purge "the host" of its infection. But first we must isolate it from the environment that makes its communicability possible. Hawk