SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106382)7/19/2003 2:33:58 AM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<a perfect breeding ground for Al Qaida>

I supported Regime Change in Afghanistan, because they were allowing Safe Haven to Al Queda. There aren't any governments, now, that officially allow Al Queda to operate on their soil. But Al Queda isn't gone. Al Queda survives, in places where the governments officialy are anti-terrorist, but tacitly allow recruiting, training, money collection, etc.

More importantly, the conditions that create recruits and sympathy for Al Queda, they aren't gone, either. After reading a variety of Muslim writings, I've come to the conclusion that it is humiliation, not poverty, that is the root cause of Islamic terrorism. Wealthy elites, middle classes, they support Islamic terrorism to at least the same degree as those in abject poverty. And they support terrorism, to the degree they feel their homeland is being controlled by foreigners.

What we have done, in Iraq, is to humiliate that nation, and to a larger extent the entire Arab "nation". We have created, in Iraq, "a perfect breeding ground for Al Queda". At most, Saddam Hussain had an arms-length alliance of convenience with Al Queda. And there isn't much evidence even, of that. Our army is going to leave Saudi Arabia, and then get kicked out of Iraq the same way the Israelis got kicked out of Lebanon, and then where will we be?

Again, I just don't see how our national interests are furthered by this.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106382)7/19/2003 7:29:08 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Maybe, maybe not" really isn't a great justification for using something as iffy as preemptive war. If a regime is going to implement a policy like preemptive war, they probably ought to be preempting more than a "maybe". And you accuse the left of mental gymnastics? Ironic.