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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (157307)	1/3/2003 12:47:13 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580018

But by controlling a nation state with substantial resources, they backstop and support several Islamist terrorist (mainly Palestinian) outfits and, more important, function as a reference point for other corrupt and dictatorial Arab regimes. SA and Pakistan do exactly the same thing or worse...SA finances Palestinian terror and Pakistan (a nuclear nation) is said to have exported technology to NK. Yet we befriend both of these nations and steadfastly support their regimes. Similar to our support of the Sha of Iran before the revolution. This is more American policy of convenience that will eventually come home to roost. It would at the same time at least begin the process of and create the circumstances for undermining the ideological hold and initiative Islamist fascism now has as an admired protagonist force among Muslim youths worldwide. Most believe exactly the opposite...that is that a forceful action in Iraq is proof of the West's hostile intent towards Islam, and that such will polarize this "islamist movement" into a more pervasive, resentful and impossible to control force bent on revenge for generations to come. It is envisaged as a catalyst for comprehensive political transformation in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, with democratic Kemalist Turkey as a model. I posted an article on Turkey earlier. Read it... Why are you blaming Gw for Nk. problems. From your article. Because for the first time in decades we have a crisis in NK that could have completely managed and avoided. Because I believe that Bush's careless daily language, actions in Iraq and published doctrines have convinced NK that the best course for them is to deter a conservative America than to wait on the sidelines for Bush to be finished with Iraq and then come after them. NK is crazy like a fox. America has fewer choices now than it did if these policies were practiced more discretely and less for the consumption of an American kept in a state of fear...post 9/11 fear... But to dismiss the country's security fears is to miss the cause of its actions. And this is the crux of the current crisis, as I said above. But to wait for NK to go back now, after decades of us refusing to give them non-aggression assurances (read both Clinton and Bush) and demand that they reverse course now will lead to a stalemate in which a solution is elusive. How can anyone imagine that NK could agree to this after years of demanding a non-aggression pact and the US refusing to give it and now Bush professing to want to change the world at gun point? Al