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 (117060)	10/17/2003 5:57:21 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Mahathir, not Chalabi, is the only realistic alternative to the Islamists. Chalabi is a convicted thief, willing to allow the looting of his nation by foreigners, in the name of economic liberalism. His constituency is in Washington, not Baghdad. And even he is getting restive, under the regime of the Control Freaks who want to dictate every detail, and share no power. He accepts being a Quisling, but he wants it to be a bit less obvious. Mahathir's consistently anti-American statements are exactly what give him legitimacy. I say "anti-American", rather than "anti-Bush", because Mahathir has made a comprehensive critique of American economic, cultural, and military hegemony. He is a nationalist. But he is one of those rare nationalists, who seek power by peaceful methods, rather than dreaming of military conquest. Malaysia, in its history as an independent nation, has never made war on any of its neighbors. Even Singapore was left alone, when Malaysia had ample excuses to occupy that temptingly rich and small island. Yes, we are "shuffling the deck" in the ME. And who knows what cards will turn up. I think the Jokers were removed, like the one about Iraq becoming a pro-American liberal democracy. And the secular thugs, like Nasser and Saddam Hussain, they are being removed, too. We can turn up a Mahathir, or a Bin Laden, those are the two choices: anti-American nationalist, or anti-American Islamist. The nationalists, we can live with.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (117060)	10/17/2003 6:39:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<The democrats need to stop undercutting our troops and US will in making a lasting change in the Mid-East.. We may fail, but we'll CERTAINLY FAIL if they continue their devisive (if not seditious) behavior.> Seditious? Come on Hawk, get a grip. It's called democracy and freedom. Where every individual has an opinion and the freedom to express it. Divisiveness is part of democracy. It's built into the very heart of it, which is why there are at least two political parties vying for power, made up of hordes of individuals representing their own interests and looking for a piece of the action. <demonstrating for the entire Islamic world to see that these "Jihadists" have little compunction towards killing people of supposedly of their own faith.> I don't think it shows that. I suppose the attacks on Moslems are by Saddamistas and others vying for power like the good old days in Iraq. Not the Jihadis. The attacks on Americans are more likely the work of the Jihadis, as well as the Saddamistas, Baathists, those simply seeking revenge, those who simply want to be violent and see opportunity, and others who have an axe to grind. I suppose, as with the box-cutter attacks, collateral damage of Moslems is okay with Jihadis if the kill ratio is strongly in their favour. The USA accepts friendly fire, collateral damage and mistakes as part of achieving the primary goal. Jihad will do the same. But I don't see how an attack by Jihad on purely Iraqi police will help them achive their goal. So I doubt it was them. Therefore, I doubt the attacks on Iraqis put Jihad in a bad light. Mqurice