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: tejek who wrote (163690)	3/10/2003 3:38:01 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574096

If this is an example of what Friedman said at J.Hopkins, then his message is far greater than simply invading Iraq. I recommend you re-read this post carefully looking for the underpinnings. While he obviously disagrees with the methodology. The key words in this document (and important in his speech) are: And I believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up — namely all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables. So I am for invading Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization. Because what the Arab world desperately needs is a model that works — a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region. I cannot think of a more concise statement of why we must go to war against Saddam; and these are precisely the reasons given by the administration. Friedman is saying precisely what some of us here have been saying for a while: That you can't stop terrorism against the United States without radically changing the situation in the Gulf. You can whine about the details, but Friedman has clearly stated his support for the war.

To: tejek who wrote (163690)	3/10/2003 11:05:24 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1574096

Ted RE...I think the chances of Saddam being willing, or able, to use a weapon of mass destruction against us are being exaggerated. What terrifies me is the prospect of another 9/11 — in my mall, in my airport or in my downtown — triggered by angry young Muslims, motivated by some pseudo-religious radicalism cooked up in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan. And I believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up — namely all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables. So I am for invading Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization. Because what the Arab world desperately needs is a model that works — a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region. If we don't find some way to help these countries reverse these deficits now — while access to smaller and smaller nuclear weapons is still limited — their young, angry undeterrables will blow us up long before Saddam ever does. Bingo, he hits it right on the head. That is why Iraq and why now.