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: michael97123 who wrote (72803)	2/10/2003 11:39:31 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If they(france and germany) play their cards right they will be attacked by an energized Islamic movement not to far down the road. Perhaps, but I'm talking about the kind of attack for which NATO was formed and for which we provided a nuclear umbrella, i.e., a conventional and nuclear attack on European soil. The premise behind NATO's existence no longer exists but the expense we incur does. Let the Europeans fend for themselves as far as terrorism is concerned. But do not worry, there will be lots of cooperation between the US and the Europeans as respects terrorism. C2@timetoyankthesecurityblanketaway.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (72803)	2/10/2003 11:58:18 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Hell they alienate Turkey by first rejecting EU membership and now protection. They enable saddam. They throw away the transatlantic alliance. They demonize bush and the USA. Do they work for Saddam and bin Laden or just do it to appease one and escape the rath of the other? I shouldn't really pick on this one example, given all the ridiculous posturing that's being going on here, but . . . Turkey has long been the odd man out in NATO. Historically, a lot of that has to do with the Greek lobby in the US. The current ploy of dragging a reluctant NATO into the Iraq war by claiming Turkey is under threat is . . . weird. Turkey is separated from Iraq by the de facto Kurdistan. Saddam's ability to attack Turkey is dubious. As for enabling Saddam, what, exactly, is Saddam "abled" to do at this point? As for throwing away the transatlantic alliance, that's a two way street. Iraq is not a threat to NATO, at least in any conventional military sense. Another somewhat less tortured line of reasoning would say that the US is intent on throwing away the transatlantic alliance if the transatlatlantic alliance won't back up Perle's grand vision. Which might be ok, given that NATO was always primarily concerned with the Soviet threat, and the Soviet threat no longer exists. One possible result of Perle's grand scheme, if it all goes through, is that Europe will realign with Russia. Like that one? As far as demonizing Bush and the USA goes, there seems to be plenty enough demonizing going around these days. You can escalate it, or you can deescalate. My jaundiced observation would be that most war advocates here are really, really into escalation on the demonization front. You like "dialog" on that level, that's your business. I guess it goes along with the war cheerleading mentality.