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: frankw1900 who wrote (105926)	7/17/2003 11:38:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Terrorism, state sponsor for many years, no question about it; but responsible for acts against the U.S., responsible for the '93 twin towers, for Oklahoma City, for al Qaeda support, hosting Osama bin Laden, giving terrorists WMD to use against us - I don't think so. " I totally agree with the above, and much of what else she has to say, but not all. "Concluding, and finally, Iraq is a complex society. It's impossible to determine how important a role individual elements - the Kurds, Arabs, Sunnis, Shia, tribes, townies (sp), women, whatever - or even the U.S. will play in shaping its future. Chas is right, it has to be their choice not ours. They will resent any imposition of a government, and rightly so. They will view the U.S. - both Iraqis and their neighbors view us with great suspicion; uncertain what our goals are, what our priorities are, and whether we will be there long enough to see them through, to see them completed. And it seems to me that we need the fullness of time, I think is the Koranic expression, to realize that." I agree that their future is theirs (and I wish other people realized that)- I'm just not sure what she thinks we are going to "see them through". I do not think it will be possible to "see them through" to our goal (a government that looks like ours)- I think we will stay, until it gets too uncomfortable to stay, and then we will leave, or try to turn the mess over to the UN. Maybe we'll be wildly more successful than that- I certainly don't have a crystal ball, but then, I know no one else has one either.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (105926)	7/17/2003 7:00:08 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for all those articles. I especially liked the one from the AEI aei.org <Our fight against Iraq was only one battle in a long war... We must move on, and faster.> But the fighting strength of our army is now fully committed. Where are the soldiers to come from, for further conquests? A draft? <I think it was a mistake to send our Secretary of State to Syria,...rather than having the Syrian president come crawling to Washington to beg for his regime's survival.> As always, the NeoCons will not negotiate, not compromise, not even give the Other a face-saving way out. Total submission, the total humiliation and defeat of opponents, is the goal for these radical utopians. <A totalitarian regime seeks to recreate man in accord with its own truth. In doing so, it denies God's transcendence. This denial is clearly demonstrated by its judiciary. As in fascist and Communist regimes, the Islamic judiciary is founded on the denial of due process that protects the juridical and moral person of the accused.> I wonder what she thinks of Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, closed military tribunals, torture and killing of detainees at Bagram Air Base, and the widespread detentions without trial in the U.S. <the Islamic Republic has no root in Iran's culture, tradition, and religion. It is nothing but a variation on the theme of modern totalitarian regime.> I found something to agree with, amazingly. She is saying, there is nothing inherintly totalitarian in Islam. <A totalitarian regime creates and propagates a fictitious version of reality in order to hide their moral and political failures.> Again, I agree. The rulers of today's Iran, and the old Soviet Union, had their Official Mythical Reality. And, so, unfortunately, does my own country... < I would like to remind the American government that the history we show that U.S. intervention in Iran for the last 50 years or so has been fairly disastrous.> But let's do it again! <...clearly the Iranians very upset about the way the Iraqis were supported by the West in that war. It is only now, for example, the Americans are waking up to the fact that in 1988 Saddam used chemical weapons, and at the time there was a certain effort in this part of the world to actually deny that it had happened, at least for a while.> No comment. Speaks for itself. Then there is a long section dissing the State Dept. Everyone had a lot of fun ridiculing our professional diplomats. It went on and on. <...I think one can make the assertion that everybody in Iran, regardless of political persuasion, certainly within the clerical community, is in favor of nuclear weaponry. If I were an Iranian cleric or if I were an Iranian liberal, I could make an argument for why I would want to have nuclear weaponry, and I think those arguments are persuasive for them,...> Islam, nationalism and science (harnessing the power of it), all agree that Iran needs nukes, to deter the U.S.