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: unclewest who wrote (103132)	6/30/2003 11:54:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Killing a few members of a population (even repeatedly) expecting political change is nonsense. It has not and is not going to happen. The real insanity is in the way the Palestinians and Israelis keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I predict an eventual, decisive and very bloody battle or series of battles that will bring one side to their knees. I doubt it; so far, outside forces have always stepped in to prevent a decisive outcome of battle. If the Israelis ever lost, they might be decisively destroyed; but when Israel is winning, there is always a stopwatch ticking, and in recent years, the US has a leash which it also yanks. The Palestinians have a well-enabled helplessness which always permits them to survive their political idiocies, and the Arab states have shaped their very raison d'etres around not accepting the reality of Israel.

To: unclewest who wrote (103132)	7/1/2003 11:43:29 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<Killing a few members of a population (even repeatedly) expecting political change is nonsense.> Excellent post. The Israelis defeated the armies of Egypt and Jordan in 1967, but they didn't, and still haven't, defeated the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Which means that ground is still contested, and the final boundaries (military, political, demographic) are still undecided. This is one basic law of modern warfare: defeating conventional armies, is often only the first and easiest step in conquest. The U.S. Army defeated the Republican Guard, but deliberately did not fight the people of Iraq, who are not defeated. We can only defeat them by two methods: 1. A huge escalation in violence against them. The Iraqis have already shown an immense ability to suffer and die and keep fighting, in the Iran-Iraq war. Our violence against them would have to be worse than anything that's happened to them so far, to be successfull. 2. Winning a hearts-and-minds campaign. Unfortunately, we have displayed none of the skills necessary to do this. Stupid, needlessly counterproductive acts, are committed daily. When I read that we are trying to get large numbers of Indian troops to help us in Iraq, it makes me realize our leaders are so ignorant (not stupid, but immensely ignorant), that every day the resistance of the Iraqi people is bound to increase. It may be, that only 10% of the people in the Muslim world will, even potentially, actively oppose us. But, if the other 90% stay neutral, we'll never be able to defeat that 10%, and their willingness to suffer for their cause, will be greater than ours, since their willingness to suffer seems infinite.

To: unclewest who wrote (103132)	7/7/2003 10:29:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I fear that America is locked in a similar skirmish with 150 million militant Muslims. The other 1.3 billion Muslims will watch. Their behaviour will be determined by the the final outcome. A truly frightening thought.. But if we take the proper actions in supporting such governments, we might stand a chance of having modernist Muslims fight their reactionary militants. Either way, for the past 15 years I've seen it as being inevitable that there would eventually be a clash between Islamic militants and the West.. Killing a few members of a population (even repeatedly) expecting political change is nonsense. Which is why I've personally believed that political leadership are legitimate targets and often more effective in exacting political change. And only in extreme cases of more intransigent leaders, target those they love who have benefitted from the prestige of these power... Target those who would drag millions along with them in their dreams of conquest and domination over others. And in such cases, collateral damage is not always preferred. Hawk