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: JohnM who wrote (64609)	1/7/2003 11:58:10 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that 9-11 means Al Qaeda has to be taken on and a smart foreign policy makes their defeat its very center piece. I don't think so. Except as an insurance piece. It's very necessary but leaves the description of the project open. The fascists who did 9/11 are anti-democrats. They used hard power to attack soft power on the international stage - it was a direct attack on democracy. They have to attack the most outstanding example to make the gesture worthwhile. Al Qaeda are international fascists and so are very visible. Equally nasty and just as dedicatedly anti-democratic within their realms are a good number of ME regimes: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria. Outside the ME are regimes of Pakistan Myanmar, China, Sudan, Libya, N Korea and there are powerful anti-democratic forces in Nigeria, Egypt, India, Bangladesh. and such forces are getting a toe hold in Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation. We are also seeing the stirrings of the old communist bunch in S America. What they all have in common is fascist structures of policies, of thought, of behaviour. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Read david's posts, do a Google or Fast Search of Hindutva, Baath, Salafism. A veritable posy of black, brown, red and white shirts. If you burrow down you will find they all explicitly oppose democracy, and are very leery of reason also: You will find all the usual organic metaphors of nationhood, umma-hood, and of course, scapegoats. All of these groups see committing genocide as necessary to achieving the great vision, whatever it be. Some of the mirror image extremists of Pakistan and India actually want a nuclear war! The nutters in Pakistan are almost in charge. Because the ideology is grandiose, US restraint actually emboldens them and helps recruitment. The Middle East, as far as I can see, is actually a good place to start combating these people. Iran's monsters are starting to look wobbly and Iraq is about to get nukes so why not start with Iraq? What has been done by the Iraq regime to Iraqis actually presages what will be done in a number of other places. However, I do not think Iraq is a part of that work;....I think it fits into the managing the global economy and the price of oil part of the work Oil is secondary importance. Nor do I think making over the ME in the image the US desires is part of that work. That's a part of the hubris I'm talking about. Hubris. Flying too close to the sun - unexpected consequences. Flying WW2 plane so fast it starts to tear itself apart -unexpected consequences. Defying convention - both Antigone and Creon are unbending, and so he immures his daughter, Antigone; they both lose. Defying reason for theory - Pol Pot kills 20% of the population. French built impregnable Maginot line - Germans went around it. Germans rearmed, made bellicose statements, folk disregarded the warnings, didn't want to fight another war - Hitler attacked Poland, etc. From the impregnable height of Masada the Jews defied the Romans - Romans built a road up there. Napoleon invaded Russia - too far, got defeated. Hitler declared the 1000 year reign - opened a second front, got defeated. Soviets collapse, modernity thought it had won, had a party and snoozed for 10 years - got a wake up call from the World Wide Fascist Movement 9/11/02. "We're baaaack." Lets look at some more. Olympic, sister ship of Titanic, did not sink. Normandy invasion successful. Men went to the moon. Britain made a colony of India. Britain won at Trafalgar. US won Battle of the Bulge. Panama Canal completed. Brooklyn bridge built. Perry sailed into Yokohama. British Crown gave about half of N America to the Hudson's Bay Company and got away with it. Had any of these things failed, it would have been hubris,of course. What you are saying is that taking Iraq and staying the course there, and making the place truly modern, is a huge, chancy project, and it might fail. So what's your point? I think it's a huge, chancy thing not to do it and irresponsible not to take it on.

To: JohnM who wrote (64609)	1/8/2003 3:57:37 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 281500

I know you don't mean to agree with me, Derek, since you generally don't, but this paragraph does. I agree that 9-11 means Al Qaeda has to be taken on and a smart foreign policy makes their defeat its very center piece. Well John, I don't think you DO agree with me here. Because the US can walk and chew gum at the same time, and Iraq is part of the threats equation. I know you wish to reduce it to some cynical quest for oil, but that's a pretty awkward glove to make fit. As for your use of the term "simpering," best leave negative ad hominem characterizations of others posts off this thread. Well, I meant that in the broadest sense, but if you feel "simpering" fits your position, so be it. As usual John, I see no benefit in discussing anything with you. And since you've really just gotten on my last nerve, you're going on ignore. Nice knowin ya. Derek