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 (35471)	7/31/2002 11:49:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

<<...I believe containment is a reasonable policy. Worked out pretty well in the cold war...>> Yup, good point....IMO, the NeoCons in Washington prefer to go to war and many of them are in bed with the military-industrial complex <VBG>....Follow the money and the ties to organizations like the very secretive Carlyle Group... hereinreality.com baltimorechronicle.com <<...“If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden’s family.” And, though the WSJ curiously did not mention this, another beneficiary may be George H.W. Bush’s family...>>

To: Win Smith who wrote (35471)	7/31/2002 11:52:05 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I believe containment is a reasonable policy. OK, I will put you down as "Do Nothing." That is where I thought you were.

To: Win Smith who wrote (35471)	7/31/2002 11:54:41 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I believe containment is a reasonable policy And if containment is breaking down, then what?

To: Win Smith who wrote (35471)	7/31/2002 12:38:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No.. Containment won't work in this case Win, imo. No matter fervently anti-communist our rhetoric may have been in the past, it was still evident that the Soviets could be negotiated with, and had no desire to commit suicide by facing down the US in a nuclear holocaust. But in the case of Muslim Extremism, we have a cause for which death and martyrdom are the order of the day. We cannot negotiate with a person who is brain-washed into believing their physical sacrifice will bring them eternal reward (and 72 virgins) in the afterlife. And there's no way we can "contain" the demographic trend either, when some 400 million muslims are currently below the age of 18. This group of young muslims will provide a large recruiting pool of disaffected young men who can't find a job, afford a wife, and little to live for. No Win, it's going to require a much more aggressive stance such as the US was forced to take with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Either that or millions of moderate muslims are going to be sujugated to theocratic tyranny. And the best way to accomplish that is to remove the sources of terrorist logistical support in the world, namely the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Syria, as well as the Wahabbi leadership in Saudi Arabia. Take out Iraq and the moderate Saudis will have sufficent "motivation" to curtail extremist activities in their own country, lest the US feel compelled to do it for them. Especially if they perceive King Abdullah and the Hashemites gaining political advantage that undermines their continued control over the Hijaz and muslim holy sites. Remember.. Saudi Arabia is the head of this extremist beast. They either provide tacit support for, or pay financial tribute to, extremist groups throughout the region, which then proceed to destabilize local governments. We must either stiffen the spine of the Saudis by taking out the tyrannies in Iraq and Iran, or replace them. But in other circumstances, I would agree that containment would be an agreeable solution. But the thought of Saddam with WMDs freaks me out. It would provide him tremendous esteem in the region and accelerate the Arab-Israeli confrontation (since the Israelis would likely pre-emptively strike). Hawk