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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (84035)	3/20/2003 5:07:15 AM
From: mirada	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Jacob Appreciate you sharing your thought here. FWIW I think the article actually explain a lot of behaviors of this administration and things, begin with the real objective of this push for Iraq. From the aritcle » Once Iraq is occupied, U.S. forces will have two missions. The first will be the occupation, pacification and reconstruction of Iraq. The second will be to pose a direct military threat two these countries. The United States certainly has no intention or desire to invade any of these countries. At the same time, the United States takes the view that it is only the threat of direct military action that will compel them to cooperate in destroying al Qaeda. A threat has no meaning if it is not serious. Therefore, in order to be effective, the United States will have to be prepared to carry out follow-on campaigns.« {The United States takes the view that it is only the threat of direct military action that will compel them to cooperate in destroying al Qaeda.} This seems to be what the current US administration believe so it follow that the main objective is PERMANENT occupation of Iraq, not Oil, not disarmament, not really regime change, certainly not the liberation of the Iraqi people, but a massive military base in the region to pose a threat to the neighbouring countries in order to destroy al Qaeda root. The occupation proposal will never fly at the UN so they didn’t really bother to try very hard, it probably won’t fly with the American people neither but I don’t know. So they just do it. The administration probably prefer to go into this alone with out the UN anyway so they can have more maneuverability when the occupation begin.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (84035)	3/20/2003 5:46:27 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

I think it would be very difficult to "plant" evidence of WMD. The problem is going to be to get the Arabs to believe it. When you look at what they now believe about 911, you can see what I mean.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (84035)	3/20/2003 8:17:53 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush has given lip service and nothing else, to promoting a Palestinian State, and that is the core of Arab anger at the U.S. Have you ever read Lewis's article in the Atlantic from about ten years ago, "The Roots of Muslim Rage"? If not, I highly recommend it. The Israeli/Pal issues is the up-front reason, the one suitable for company. But it's not the core. The core reasons go back to Napolean's Egyptian campaign of 1798, and further. If Israeli/Pal was really the core issue, then the Arabs should have loved Clinton for all the time and effort he put into negotiating a two state solution, right? Well, did they?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (84035)	3/20/2003 9:28:24 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Again, well said, Jacob. I particularly like the following points: More and More, we are hearing approving use of such phrases as "puppet", "colonialism", "client state", done by the "superior civilization". I had thought we were going back to the 1950s, but maybe its really the 1800s the NeoCons want to go back to. <snip> <If the United States cannot be loved, the second best outcome is to be feared.> I am ashamed to say, that seems to be the policy of my government.