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: Bilow who wrote (101625)	6/15/2003 9:11:46 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't care. Let them fight it out themselves. I'm not avoiding the question, I'm answering it as a "don't care". Well, I do care Carl.. And that's one more difference between you and I. I have friends and associates who are deployed over there (somewhere, since they can't talk about it). And I would be doing the same, had I not left the service during the Clinton "dark ages" when we didn't even have sufficient funds to do realistic training... And were the opportunity to present itself, now that I'm a civilian, I would be over there right now. Because I BELIEVE IT'S THAT IMPORTANT!! I've already discussed at length the demographic trends that occuring in the middle east. In fact, I, along with some very astute researchers, over 14 years ago, all believed this was inevitable and that it would require US intervention to oppose the rise of Islamic fundamentalism both militarily and economically. But where I was mistaken is that I believed Egypt would be the first Arab state to fall prey to fundamentalist pressures given the tremendous economic and demographic pressures that country faces. But Mubarak has surprised all of us with his ability to keep the Ihkwan (Moslem Brotherhood) under his thumb. We're going to have to fight this war one way or another Carl. I would fight it on THEIR territory than on our own. And I would rather do it now, than later on, when some despot such as Saddam Hussein manages to dominate the rest of the region because he possesses WMDs (and especially a nuclear shield).. And I want to do it in such a way that we are able to create regimes that have more in common with western political values, than with Wahhabist militants. We do it now, when relatively minor quantities of military strength can create a paradigm shift, or we wait until the only recource is all-out conflict and full mobilization of American manpower. I'm sorry that people like you cannot (will not) see this. But it was the same way prior to WWII, with "America First" rallies. But it was people who thought like yourself, that were willing to abandon nations like England to Hitler's blitz, rather than get involved in a European war: fff.org The petition was their response to President Roosevelt's series of actions that violated America's neutrality. "We demand that Congress refrain from war, even if England is on the verge of defeat," the petition stated. But in their case, they did it BEFORE the US was attacked. (and we invaded several countries during WWII who never attacked us in order to "get at" the Nazis and Japanese). For example, Vichy France did not attack the US. But we sank their fleet and invaded their colonies in N. Africa and The Levant, all for the purpose of fighting the Nazis. This, imo, is what we're doing in Iraq. Setting up exactly what you desire most, two opposing power centers, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, re-establishing a balance of power in the region. Hawk