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: Win Smith who wrote (77580)	2/26/2003 3:41:55 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

< The argument that bin Laden is bad and Saddam is bad and so bin Laden is like Saddam, or vice versa? That's fine, although not all that edifying. I said they're both our enemies. An unexceptional statement but true. It doesn't exactly explain why Powell is going around claiming that bin Laden calling Saddam an infidel shows they're connected, but that's ok. Maybe it's all part of showing "they can make common cause" He didn't of course. He brought up what appeared to be a cooperative venture in Northern Iraq. I note Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated with each other when Iraq provided expertise in aQ's chemical endeavor in Afghanistan. Good enough for me, but not a necessary reason for invading Iraq. Might be a reason for saying the invasion should not be put off. I don't think Fred Wertheimer will be too happy to hear that. Does Wertheimer think they're not our enemies? Does he think enemies can't/won't cooperate against a common enemy? It's happened often. You know, I thought the original post that started out this exchange was a rather ordinary criticism of the US admin: Message 18628060 [You write]: The war marketing campaign has certainly tried hard to make a connection between bin Laden and Iraq. If they don't need to be connected, the marketeers shouldn't be trying to manufacture a connection, it doesn't do much for their credibility. [My reply]; Nah. They've made the wrong connection. It's a failure to believe citizens aren't able to think. The 911 event and the Iraq situation are partly the result of decades of bad US policy in the ME. Both Iraq and al Qaeda are things that must be dealt with. There are two totalitarian ideologies spinning around the ME: The pan-Arab nationalism of the Baathists and the islamofascism of the Wahhabists (al Qaeda the terrorist wing) and Iranian Shiites. They are the result of a reaction to modernity - or, more specifically, lack of access to it by people living there. Most regimes in the ME are anti-modern. From the point of view of the West (particularly the US) there is no practical difference between the two. For a while it was convenient - but shortsighted - to have the Iraqis fighting the Iranians but when that was over the real nature of the Hussein/Baathist ideology became apparent. There was the Gulf War as a result. It's clear as soon as the pressure is off, Hussein will start expansion efforts again. The islamofascist movement is less of an immediate threat to the ME but, like Baathism, is expansionary and inimical to modernism, Arabian or any other. They are both our enemies and enemies of most folk who live in the area. That's all the connection you need. Furthermore, they are capable of making common cause. Only through a change in Western (that is, US) policy - large, visible change - backed by vigorous action will we defeat the two enemies. Invading Iraq and destroying the regime is all part and parcel of what needs to be done. Actually, I believe most Americans get the basic idea. They've been looking at Hussein for over a decade and al Qaeda and its ilk for two years. It's not hard for many folk to see synergies in deposing the regime in Iraq and strategic campaign against islamist terrorism. This isn't rocket science. They have obvious characteristics in common - and are connected practically but it's not necessary to demonstrate this practical connection as reason/justification for attacking either of them. They're active enemies of the US and that's good enough reason for attacking them. Your original point is correct: trying to make the connection tight doesn't especially help the admin's credibility.