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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (175678)	9/30/2003 9:54:22 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571016

And we attack a country that had nothing to do with it There is so much wrong with this statement that it defies explanation. But I shall try. First, we did not attack a "country". We attacked a dictator. The "country", as we now know, has welcomed us as its liberators and on a daily basis their respect and admiration for the United States and its leadership grows substantially. To say that Saddam's regime (the entity we attacked) had "nothing to do with it" is both naive and wreckless. It is inconceivable to me that you don't comprehend the systemic nature of the Middle East, and that these nations operate as a related system of components. What happens in Iraq affects Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria -- all th nations in the region (to suggest otherwise is to accept the notion, for example, that if Canada were to become a brutal dicatatorship overnight it would not affect the USA, which is, of course, absurd). You apparently have no respect for the plight of these people whatsoever. They are people of rich nations that can only look at us in envy because their very wealth has been used to enslave them. They don't have the freedoms we have and lack the ability to develop economically. They want recognition. Just like you and I would if we were in their situations. While removal of Saddam was key, the point of the war was to establish an environment in the Middle East where freedom and democracy can prosper. By doing this, over time, we eliminate the core problem of anti-Americanism. Bush properly assessed the situation and determined that only through attacking the problem at its most fundamental root could the problem be solved. He recognized, as did many of us, that it would be a long-term commitment that the Democrats would take him to task for. But long-term, it is absolutely, indisputably the best way to begin solving the problem that brought us 9/11 and brings terrorism to Israel. Get rid of the weeds in the middle of the flowerbed and plant a nice big seed that will grow into something great. This concept is beyond those who require instant gratification.

To: Alighieri who wrote (175678)	10/2/2003 9:36:53 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571016

Al, And we attack a country that had nothing to do with it, while our president and his closest advisers sell the notion that it did... yes...it is idealistic to think that such things should not happen I wasn't the most enthusiastic about Iraq war, so I don't think I am the best person to defend it. But my take on it is that it is related to the solution of the terrorist problem - even if tangentially. First, let's review what the problem is. The problem is the fanatical Wahhabi brand of Islam that is producing the likes of Bin Laden, and is sponsoring (with the oil dollars) the militant islamist philosophy throughout the islamic world. But how do you fight it? Head on? Attack Saudi Arabia? That may not be the best idea, because right now, the House of Saud may be realising the monster they have created, and they are considering cracking down. I think this is why Bush is maintaining friendly relationship with the princes, moved the bases away, to make it easier on them. If the house of Saud, through their self interest of preserving their monarchy becomes the ally against Wahhabi, so much the better, as they would be the ones "fighting", or de-clawing the Wahhabis. I am not sure if the Saud are committed yet. Let's wait and see. Anyway, how is Iraq related to all of this? Somewhat tangentially. Iraq is not really (or did not used to be) on the front line with Al-Qaeda, but it was more connected to the non-fanatical, non-Wahhabi world. This part of the world needs an example of a functioning, prosperous, modern Islam society (I don't know Turkey counts, since it is too different from the rest of the Arab/Muslim world). As Jeffrey Pipes said, the way you fight fanatical militant Islam is to make them moderate, peace-loving. So there has to be an alternative. Iraq is a convenient target, to become that alternative, convenient for multiple reasons. Anyway, that is my read of the neo-con plan: - attack Wahhabi/Talliban on the battlefield of Afghanistan - cut of the source of their funding ("charities") - make Saudi's cut off the funding as well - hopefully, sign up Saudis against Wahhabi - provide alternative (Iraq) - give another shot to resolving Palestinian conflict (low probability of success Iran is another variable in the equasion. What do you think would be a better way to depose the ayatollah's than an example of Shiates living in an open, non-totalitarian state, right across the border? You know, all I hear is criticism, but I yet to hear an alternative strategy from any of the critics. Joe