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 (114765)	9/14/2003 8:55:47 AM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow: The terrorists do not need to nuke a US city or an Israeli one. There are more than ample areas in the Mideast where with conventional weapons they could strike oil export facilities and devastate the world economies. A nuclear threat from terrorists could arise someday with or without our support of Israel. Establishing a progressive representative government in Iraq will do more to help alleviate a future nuclear threat than the other option of leaving Saddam in Iraq. Anyway my point is that you are worrying about terrorists obtaining nukes when they already have the capability of inflicting very serious damage to the world economy. The indirect damages are very high for both a nuclear attack on a city and taking out a large % of oil supply. A couple of links involving export facilities. poten.com Copy from the link below: <<The Saudi system seemed--and still seems--frighteningly vulnerable to attack. Although Saudi Arabia has more than eighty active oil and natural-gas fields, and more than a thousand working wells, half its proven oil reserves are contained in only eight fields--including Ghawar, the world's largest onshore oil field, and Safaniya, the world's largest offshore oil field. Various confidential scenarios have suggested that if terrorists were simultaneously to hit only a few sensitive points "downstream" in the oil system from these eight fields--points that control more than 10,000 miles of pipe, both onshore and offshore, in which oil moves from wells to refineries and from refineries to ports, within the kingdom and without-they could effectively put the Saudis out of the oil business for about two years. And it just would not be that hard to do.>> foi.missouri.edu

To: Bilow who wrote (114765)	9/14/2003 2:18:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No. It's ancient history. Nobody but you cares about it. So anything over 20 years ago is ancient history for you? What are you, a teenager? The fact is that US foreign policy has been tilted towards Israel for 20+ years, and that has soured our relations with the Arab countries. Would you prefer we tilted our relations towards Saddam Hussein or Hafez Al-Assad during that period? How about forming an alliance with Arafat? Will that make you happy? Just abandon Israel, the only democracy in the region, and side with the totalitarian Arab regimes, right?? What you REFUSE to accept is that the Arab states have attempted to use the existence of Israel (not just the displaced Palestinians) as a means of deflecting their own population from unleashing their frustration and anger upon their own regimes. And now, no matter how much the various hard-core Arab states might want to make peace with Israel, they have created the conditions where doing so would undermine their legitimacy. So they continue to support the intolerant factions within the PA. And let's also face the FACT that Europe's tendency to legitimize terrorist and corrupt governments, such as Arafat and Saddam's governments has(had) permitted those regimes to avoid moderating their oppression and violent nature. Israel, no matter how reactionary some of their political factions may be, has not advocated the destruction of any other country. Nor has that government permitted any of those reactionary factions to wage a violent campaign to assert their agenda. Contrast that to the PA, where Hamas, Al-Aqsa, and several other factions have been permitted by Arafat to grow to such strength that, even if he wanted to, he could not rein in their activities without threatening civil war within the PA. And these groups are able to survive because countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and Saddam's regime in Iraq, funded and logistically supported them. So MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, US support for Israel would diminish were it seen that other nations in the region weren't so intent on perpetuating the conflict for their own selfish purposes. I'd have no problem with the US dictating to Israel to withdraw all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.. But that's a useless proposition if it is unilaterally implemented without a reciprocal quid pro quo by Arafat and the PA leadership against facilitating the violent activities of the various factions sheltering in the PA. I opine that Israel is ready, or at least, susceptible to "suggestion" by the US, to accept those conditions. But why should the Bush administration be willing to take such steps while the rest of the Arab nations in the region are not content to force Arafat to do what he needs to do? Let the Israelis build their security fence/wall, and then pull out their settlements. That will separate the both antagonists and provide a cooling off period for both while Arafat (or whoever replaces him), gets their act together. Let Arafat be faced with the burdens of running a country without being able to depend upon perpetuating the constant conflict between the two countries. And let him attempt to convince Western nations to subsidize his regime while he's unable to control the unruly groups vying to carry out their own agenda. Yes Germany in 1941 was a hornet's nest. But Germany had the ability to hurt us a hell of a lot more than the Arabs do, at least in the current situation. I guess you don't see the contradiction inherent in the above statement. First you rant about wanting to see terrorists "nuking" Tel Aviv and not Baltimore, but then you claim that we were justified in becoming involved in WWII because Nazi Germany was more of a threat to us?? Maybe I'm just being silly (someone please tell me if I am), But at one point Saddam was closer to building a nuclear warhead than Hitler ever was (certainly in 1941). And Iran is probably (according to some sources) close enough to have one in February. So since you honestly believe that these suicidal Islamo-fascists will eventually have a bomb and use it, you are trying to tell us that they are less of a threat than Hitler was? And you call that logical?? As far as I'm concerned you're whistling past the graveyard, Bilow... You, and your ilk, are the kind of people who permit these kinds of problems to fester until they require all-out mobilizations such as was required in 1941. People of my ilk tend to try and recognize, and put out, a "fire" of this magnitude BEFORE it's already burning down our house. And whatever blood that is shed now, on either side, will hopefully prevent far greater bloodshed later on. That's where our differences effectively lie.. And the past has proven people like myself to be more correct than isolationistic procrastinators like yourself. Hawk