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: Hawkmoon who wrote (109423)	8/2/2003 2:20:01 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Drip, drip. Anyone hear the leak? Anyone else notice how this explosive report has taken nearly two years to compile, and is being leaked to the public after we no longer need to keep our troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam Hussein? In fact, between our bases in Kuwait and Qattar and our occupation of Iraq, don't need Saudi Arabia militarily at all. The whole relationship is now oil, which they need to sell even more than we need to buy. _______________________________________________ Report on 9/11 Suggests a Role by Saudi Spies By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — The classified part of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, says that two Saudi citizens who had at least indirect links with two hijackers were probably Saudi intelligence agents and may have reported to Saudi government officials, according to people who have seen the report. These findings, according to several people who have read the report, help to explain why the classified part of the report has become so politically charged, causing strains between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Senior Saudi officials have denied any links between their government and the attacks and have asked that the section be declassified, but President Bush has refused. People familiar with the report and who spoke on condition of not being named said that the two Saudi citizens, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassnan, operated in a complex web of financial relationships with officials of the Saudi government. The sections that focus on them draw connections between the two men, two hijackers, and Saudi officials. nytimes.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (109423)	8/2/2003 3:33:43 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "To everyone but people like yourself, it's pretty evident that there will likely continue to be violence waged against US troops." Huh??? I want our troops back in the US. They're fairly safe here. And if you're trying to make the case that the death rate in Iraq is equivalent to what US soldiers in the US would suffer from criminals, drunk drivers, or heart disease (LOL), then you need to put together some age adjusted statistics to make your case. Or at least state your case sufficiently precisely that it can be picked apart, all you're doing now is mouthing platitudes. Yeah, we know death is inevitable to all. Funny that I didn't hear you making that claim with regard to the 3000 dead in the WTC attack. Back then you were arguing that life is pretty important, now you are arguing that the lives of our soldiers aren't such a big deal. Re: "Could it be because the enemy knows that people like you will be willing to "bail out" at the first sign of difficulty?" Compare with what you were saying last fall: Hawkmoon, September 30, 2002 Personally, I don't want the US to be forced to engage in another long lasting face off such as we endured during the cold war. And I certainly don't want to have to do it in the Middle East. Do you know how hard it will be recruit young American boys with visions of long, sweltering days in the Desert sun?? Because this ain't Germany. (which we still don't want to leave. hehe). Their ain't no Alps. only sand dunes. And there ain't no beer, or Oktoberfest, or lederhosen. Just desalinated water, daily calls to prayer, and black veils. And after last night's 60 minutes, you're going to have a hard time getting the American people to make a long term committment toward stationing tens of thousands of troops there. #reply-18051911 So let's get this straight. Last fall your argument was that we should have a quick war with Iraq because it wasn't possible to get the American people to keep "tens of thousands" of troops in Kuwait, where our troops had generally friendly relations with the locals and were not subject to daily attacks. So the administration followed your foolhardy advice, sent 140,000 troops into Iraq (far, far more than the "tens of thousands" that were keeping the peace), and when the plan to get them down to 30,000 by the end of 2003 failed miserably, leaving them in a place where the locals make hourly attacks against them, and now you think that the American public is going to support keeping them there (in the words of the Bush administration) "indefinitely"? You're a real piece of work. I could understand most of your rant, especially liked the point where you implied that my head was up my ass, but I couldn't figure this accusation out: "People who know the price of everything and the value of nothing?" What do you mean by that? Ignorance is bliss? Look, you and your kind got us into a hell of a bind here. By your own admission, the US public doesn't have the 'nads to keep *tens of thousands* of troops indefinitely in even the *safe* parts of the Middle East. How the hell do you think you're going to convince that collection of impatient cowards that they need to keep *hundreds of thousands* of troops in radically *unsafe* places like Iraq? So what happened between last fall and now? Did 51% of the American public get backbone transplants from Conan the Barbarian? Or is it a simple case that the Iraq war failed miserably and the logic you used to get us into it spells the reason why we will exit it. You talk about "values" as if you knew what was best for this country. The truth is that this is not a nation of warriors, there is not a chance in hell that we'll stick it out in Iraq. Nor is it remotely possible that the neocons, who have a lifetime of egg on their face (over the WMD, Iraq = Al Qaeda, Iraqi people welcome liberation, troops back by September, world will supply replacement troops, Iraq will pump lots of oil, etc., etc., etc., exaggerations / lies) will convince the American public that this time, they're right and that the light can be observed that signifies the end of the tunnel. Sorry, but these are the simple facts. WE ARE LEAVING IRAQ. If you want to minimize the damage and humiliation to the United States, you need to recognize the reality that the American public will not accept an indefinite occupation of a people that regularly kill us. It just ain't gonna fly. To get us sucked into Vietnam required the threat of Communism, along with a gradualism that saw us only slowly lose. Iraq has been far more sudden, so the failure in planning is more obvious right from the beginning. And without an obvious source of external supplies to the Iraqi rebels, it is not possible for the war to be continued by an administration that thinks that if they put enough pressure on "North Iraq", perhaps by mining their harbors (LOL), they can get a "negotiated settlement." -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (109423)	8/6/2003 4:30:01 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Is that what you advocate for domestic policy as well? Do nothing.. it will all work itself out somehow? Tell that to the millions of Arabs who are living without economic hope and who blame the west (particularly the US) for supporting the regimes which have left them in this condition... 400 million muslims are currently under the age of 18... Even 1% of them becoming radicalized will mean 4 million potential terrorist bombers... I actually agree with the above comment--but think that our actions in Iraq are ensuring that "1% of them [will become] radicalized" Or rather, that more than 1% will become so. And not just what we are doing in Iraq, but perhaps even more importantly, how we went about doing it. I know, I know, you believe that the way we went about doing it was the only way possible, it was inevitable that we alienate not just a large part of the Muslim world but a huge part of the non-Muslim world as well. I think it was just a combination of incompetence and incredibly short-sighted domestic electoral politics. I don't really want to rehash that old argument again, but the mess we are building is potentially so huge that I have to keep reminding myself that there was a purpose somewhere sometime, however idiotic.