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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39356)	8/21/2002 11:16:06 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, I do. Al Qaeda depends on sponsorship and recruitment. They do not need huge amounts of either to do their dirty work. I see no reason why they need any State support at all; if anything, an expanded US military presence in the region will make recruitment easier. Once we have Iraq, I do think a respectful quiet will descend on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, since nobody will want to volunteer to be next. I would guess that once we "have" Iraq - and, barring HIV or rabies, I can think of few things I'd want less - the Islamist priority will shift to destabilizing whatever regime we insert. That would force us to keep troops there, in static positions, ideal targets for terrorist attack and intifadeh-style resistance. The real danger here that I see is that we will find ourselves choosing between indefinite support for a shaky regime in Iraq and backing out, which would be tantamount to surrender. Regime change is the relatively easy part. What comes after is where it gets dicey.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (39356)	8/22/2002 1:02:12 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

To date, this has been a cost-free option for them. Heads I win; tails, those nasty terrorists have nothing to do with me, nothing at all. What I really wonder is how we will respond when eventually we're hit with a biological or chemical attack?? Will people be still saying "we can't attack such and such radical nation" because we don't have any proof they had anything to with it?? I mean think about it. One biological or chemical attack and we're not able to pin it on any one nation in particular, despite the knowledge that terrorists have used these states for sanctuary and support?? I'd rather the world think we Americans are about to run rampant and get some payback... even if it means taking down some nasty regimes where we might not have concrete evidence of terrorist complicity. After all, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and only if we're willing to take the world to the brink of regional war will they truly attempt to placate us and deal with these terrorist networks. Sometimes the best strategy is not to be overly predictable or moderate. I want some folks out there in the international world to know we're ready to shake some things up to their detriment if we don't get our way with regard to rounding up these folks and locking down access to WMDs in radical regimes.. Hawk