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: Bilow who wrote (37187)	8/12/2002 10:39:20 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

By the way, where's our "nuclear shield" effect? We should be able to get Iraq to do whatever we want by threatening to nuke them. Threats have to be believed to have any effect.

To: Bilow who wrote (37187)	8/12/2002 11:35:18 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

That solution is not available in the Middle East. It is beyond US power, as limited by diplomatic and political reality, to make any nation there kneel. Of course it's not so long as certain individuals continue to refer to 9/11 merely as a "tragedy" and not the blatant attack that it was. I look back at what Yamamoto allegedly stated after Pearl Harbor: "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant, and fill it with a desire for vengeance." And I have to ask why it seems that certain folks are apparently STILL SLEEPING, trying to believe that 9/11 was just a "bad dream" and a mere tragedy. Maybe if we just roll over and go back to sleep it will just all "go away" and they will leave us alone. Now why others don't want to seek to permanently alter the circumstances in which extremist groups are financed, politically supported, and provided with willing members eager to lose their lives for Allah is simply beyond me. I personally don't care if we have to "crack a few eggs to make an omelet". (lord knows THEY are cracking a few eggs themselves) It might be fine if they were only killing one another, but they've attacked the US, Bilow. This attack was not conducted without implicit approval of those leaders who were are harboring and supporting Al-Qaeda. And any sign of weakness on our part with regard to our resolve or response only invites further attack. Like it or not, we're the world's last superpower. That means we're "king of the Hill" and our enemies are hell bent upon "knocking us off" economically and politically. They know they can only implement their vision of the world (Islamic Theocracy) by removing our ability to oppose them. And I don't believe the US has anything to apologize for with regard to the economic and political vision we have in mind for the world. It's the fairest, and most free of any ideology being touted around the globe today. So we can either accept the responsibilities implicit with advancing such a vision, or we can retreat and permit the world to continue on its totalitarian/monarchical path of human subjugation. Oh, so you're going to take over Saudi Arabia and prevent them from supporting terrorism? That would be a joke if it wouldn't put the US into the losing side in WW3. Not necessarily. I'm only interested in eliminating external pressures (such as Iran and Iraq) that create the belief that the Saudi royals have to support terrorism. It's either the carrot, or the stick. And the Saudi royals, including those like Prince Abdullah who is reportedly anti-Wahabbi), will be required to take the steps necessary to reduce extremist influence in Saudi Arabia. Hawk