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: Dayuhan who wrote (117257)	10/20/2003 9:40:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A ridiculous hypothesis. Comparison to 1941 is irrelevant, and today, when it matters, this course of action would do more harm than good. Why is it anymore irrelevant than the precedent set by Jefferson attacking the Barbary Pirates, the Spanish American War, WWI (Lusitania incident),or any number of other wars which we've become involved in? The only thing different, IMO, is that we're less inclined to go to war because it's more difficult to focus and "persuade" American citizens to mobilize the national will to do so, given the proliferation of opinons and political rhetoric/baiting.. Bush has failed, thus far, to mobilize the national will to our strategy in Iraq and the Mid-East. And in part, it's because revealing that strategy would be counter-productive to accomplishing it.. (like telling your poker opponent the hand you possess). So he obviously has to speak "around" what the official strategy is... But there's nothing that says Bush shouldn't have some of his pundits out and about carrying "some of his water" with regard to why this is STILL a war against militant ideals (as you correctly point out). Furthermore, we should never fail to recognize that we need to provide an alternative ideal for moderate Muslims to adopt. The belief that Islam and secular government are incompatible is just fallacious as the belief that Christianity and democracy were anti-thetical to one another. Btw, I'm not one of those "water carriers" since I've been discussing the threat of Islamic militancy for over 10 years, here and with acquaintances, even during the previous administration. This is a theme that ALL PARTIES need to accept, that Islamic militancy will afflict the administrations of ALL politicians from now on, until either suppressed/repressed, eliminated (with all of the nasty consequences that implies), or replaced/moderated. Nazism was just such an ideal, as was Fascism.. We chose not to fight it, nor to moderate our own economic policies, to avoid it's proliferation... Chose not to fight until the fight became unavoidable. Unfortunately too many people refuse to understand that analogy, or what it bodes for our futures should we ignore it.. As for "installing" regimes, this is exactly what the Jihadists are trying to do. It's what totalitarian systems do, to subjugate people under their control.. So I don't know what kind of choice we possibly have except to temporarily back the existing regimes, while at the same time demanding political change (and supporting them financially). Take care Steven... We may disagree, but I always appreciate your imput. Hawk