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: LindyBill who wrote (64389)	1/5/2003 2:49:30 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Tom Friedman's Sunday NYT Column. It's OK to admit Oil is part of our reason for doing things, we just have to be unselfish about it. Sounds familiar. Yup, every other sentence TF agrees that America must project power, in between he wags his finger and tells us we better be nice about it. Um, Tom, first thing first. If we are projecting power, sometimes we may have to be nasty. We can afford to be nice after we have projected power. Before then, niceness only reads as weakness. Let's be nice only to our friends. Just got my copy of FA and read Doran's excellent article. He points out that Palestine functions as a symbolic trump card in the Arab world, where the radicals tell the powers-that-be "Ha! you call yourself REAL Arabs? If you're real Arabs, then what are you doing about Palestine?! Not only are you not doing anything, you're in bed with America and the Zionist conspiracy!". This leads to an 'arms race' in anti-Israel and anti-US rhetoric between the radicals and the elite. Neither of whom cares a fig for the actual welfare of the Palestinians, of course. Doran also points out that Palestine works best as a symbol when Palestine is burning, and the radicals certainly would not welcome a settlement: Radical Islamists are by nature revolutionaries, enemies of the prevailing orders and enemies of the West. A practical solution to the Palestine question would solidy the status quo and further legitimate the presence of the United States in the region. Far from welcoming such developments, radical Islamists would consider them a catastrophe. For this reason, Doran says that those who say we must solve the Israeli conflict before dealing with Iraq and Al Qaeda are deeply mistaken; the road to Jerusalem does go through Baghdad.

To: LindyBill who wrote (64389)	1/5/2003 4:55:22 AM
From: david	Respond to of 281500

You might be right about the oil , but in my opinion the reason for going tough on Sadam and not on NK is something else. On Iraq there is almost a consensus that he has to go, and few are against it even if they pay only a lip service On NK is much more complicated from the Geopolitical point of view Sadam right now can not invade a neighbor with 1.000.000 well armed and trained soldiers Sadam does not control the skies. Sadam does not have the nuke yet. It is easier to get a Chinese tacit acceptance for getting rid of Sadam, if we attack Iraq there isn't a real losing face for the Arabs, but in NK case it is getting into the Oriental Geosphere and the Chinese area of influence. Right now in the case of NK is wiser to try and do the utmost trough secret diplomacy and negotiations with all involved parties, China, SK, NK, etc. NK is not on a Pan Arab or Nationalist pat with the intentions of going to war and expanding, they are more on a net Business and extortion for their Regime and economical survival ( I agree that the lider is no better then Sadam Huseein, ) but this Regime is on the way of extinsion like all the communist ones, and the danger of attacking is much bigger then the Iraqui.