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: broadstbull who wrote (94510)	4/18/2003 12:00:33 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I want you to know I have nothing against you and respect your views. I am only arguing the merits of the point and not the person behind them. Show me one post where I show blind respect for govt. I try to choose my words as carefully as I can. My comment was not directed at you alone, but at range of attitudes who confuse patriotism with my country right or wrong. But since you asked, here is your statement that really prompted me to write my post: siliconinvestor.com I also find it disturbing that the "with us or against us" is offensive to you and others. We can discuss how this type of view leads to abuse and might even be disastrous. If you don't think a country should pull together 100% during a time of war, you are not as enlightened as I thought you were. This is a debatable point. The short answer is that how much I feel the people need to pull together at the time of war is directly dependent on how much threat the enemy poses. I would buy your argument if I was living in an occupied land by the Nazis. I don't agree with it when we are dealing with Iraq. BTW, have you considered it from the other side? Were the Italian partisans or the French underground traitors because they moved against their government at the time of war? I suspect that if I was an Italian during WW2 I'd be defending the government but if I was a French I'd be fighting against it. It is not as cut and dry as you make it sound. I don't consider Yiwu an intelligent adversary. More of a person that post false news from neo nazi websites, than says "don't blame me, I didn't write it". She'll post anything, as long as it makes America look lousy. How about giving the country you have emigrated to a fair shake? They've done at least that much for her. I agree that she is very biased and that clouds her judgment. Still, it is important to understand the perspective of the other side even if it is annoying and misguided. Many times people whom I considered rather ignorant have led me to discover valuable points. However, Bush has earned my respect. Outside of the SA issue, I think he has done a wonderful job with foreign policy. Surprisingly, most of my dislike of Bush is not due to his foreign policy. In that regards is neither worse nor better than the average presidents since WW2. But I do think he has done greater damage to America than most others (friend or foe). The essence of what I don't like about him comes down to his basic disrespect for need to distrust the government as expressed in the Constitution. He portrays an air of arrogance that sees these checks and balances and the ideal of the Declaration of Independence as obstacles that he should walk around. I'd discuss this further too, but this is not a domestic discussion thread. ST

To: broadstbull who wrote (94510)	4/18/2003 12:11:24 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you had taken one minute to look at my 'disturbing' posts(which I doubt you did) you would have seen that I have been asking the Bushies over at the GWB board why they consider Iraq and enemy, but not Suadi Arabia. I have taken a ton a flak for pointing out Bush's appearance of being "in bed" with the Saudis. I believe, and have long posted such, that Saudi Arabia is the end game of the neocon middle east strategy. I think it is a fair statement to say that the Bush administration is 'in bed' with the House of Saud. I also think it is best of some very bad alternatives. The House of Saud is on shaky ground, if they fall, it will be to a Wahhabi uprising. Just what the world needs now, a Wahhabi government in Saudi Arabia. Next to a fundamentalist coup in Pakistan, it is my second biggest fear in the middle east today. All the smart bombs and special ops boys will do you know good if that happens. The US cannot simply waltz into Saudi Arabia with foment an organized Islamic crusade. Imagine some testosterone driven corporal flying the Stars and Stripes over Mecca for a minute. Nightmare scenario. Then there's the oil problem. The solution, and what I believe the Bush strategy, is to undermine the credibility of Islamist terror as a source of political power with the people of the Middle East. Push the House of Saud towards reform with causing them to fall, pull the rug out from underneath the Wahhabi mullahs, support the voices of moderation as they emerge. Saudi Arabia is the biggest problem and it is the end game. Can't capture the other guys King without taking some territory and some other pieces first. Syria is just noise right now, the real next 'target' is Iran. The fall of the Iranian mullahs will be a tectonic shock to the Islamist movement because it is the people of Iran who are rejecting fundamental Islam as the governing method. Patience. Keep your eye on the prize. Paul