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: jcky who wrote (57008)	11/13/2002 9:46:43 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

a war against terrorism is a quagmire.....fatal flaw with our current Mideast policies jcky, any review of our policies has to start with the fact that we are not going to change our policy towards Israel. That is just reality. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. Does not make any difference whither you want it or I oppose it. The more we are attacked by these terrorists, the stronger our relationship with Israel will be. You can see how much stronger that relationship is since 911. "Quagmire" was an overused expression during Vietnam, and does not apply here. I think Steve is right. There is always going to be a profit in selling drugs. Running a Terrorist operation is becoming unprofitable very fast. We can search out, identify, and neutralize these terrorists faster than they can be recruited and trained. We have more men and money and intelligence on our side.

To: jcky who wrote (57008)	11/13/2002 10:31:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

The difference between politics and drugs is that drugs deliver the goods reliably and quickly. Politics, on the other hand, requires much more faith in getting the benefit "someday". When ideologies don't delive, they lose favor. As we saw with Communism, the process can take a long time. So our job is to render Islamism a loser, as quickly as possible. This is a difficult job that requires a two-pronged approach: hunting down the terrorists and providing some example of a better idea. Can we afford to continue and ignore the opinion of millions of Arabs, Europeans, and Westerners who have observed a fatal flaw with our current Mideast policies? What's the choice? We have tried at various times to achieve a "balanced" policy, and it didn't help. We were seen as providing one-sided support for Israel anyway. Remember, in 1967 our policy really was "balanced"; we tried to keep good relations all around, and did not supply Israel with arms or economic aid. That didn't stop Nasser from claiming that the USAF fought for Israel in the Six Day War. The whole Arab world believed it too. They needed to, to salve their pride. As Barry Rubin pointed out at length in his article, all our efforts to achieve "balance" since, and they have been many, might as well never have happened. The Arabs need to believe that Israel is part of the United States so they can be losing to great big us, not little Israel. So what changes in policy do you suggest? Cut Israel off, recognize "Palestine" instead of Israel? What would be the market value of American friendship in such a case? Do you think the Arabs would thank us for it, or merely despise us? After all, their need to proclaim us as an enemy would not have dissipated.

To: jcky who wrote (57008)	11/14/2002 8:05:10 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't believe a war against terrorism is any more winnable than our war against drugs, poverty, or crime. I am confident we can win a war against al-Qaida--the terrorist network responsible for attacking innocent Americans on 9/11, but a war against terrorism is a quagmire. If you mean a war against all terrorism, everywhere, I agree. If you mean a war against terrorism that poses a specific and serious threat to the US, I don’t agree. I think we can win that war if we keep our objectives achievable, practical, and sequential. We just have to focus on the real enemy, and choose tactics and weapons appropriate to the nature of the fight. How do you wage and win a war against an ideological concept unless you are able to eliminate every single individual espousing such ideas? You don’t. Fortunately, we don’t have to. We are not at war with an ideological concept; we are at war with a small group of people that has twisted an ideological concept into a vehicle for their own personal ambitions. That’s a winnable war. Sometimes it is the perception which is just as important as the reality and if the majority of the world thinks we need to reassess our Mideast policies, it behooves us to listen even if we may not like what we hear. With this I agree, mainly because I believe that both our policies and the manner with which we implement our policies are making it easier for our enemies to maintain their positions. This amounts to supplying your enemy with ammunition, generally recognized as a tactical error.