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: aladin who wrote (118042)	10/29/2003 8:29:23 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 281500

>>"There have been no major attacks here in 2 years 1 month and 18 days - if on 9/12 anyone had promissed that, they would have been laughed at..."<< Well what do you expect....we have the Alaska Missile Defense System well on its way to protecting us from car bombs and container ships.

To: aladin who wrote (118042)	10/29/2003 9:42:16 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<The policy of being measured in response and treating Al Quaeda as a criminal organization was tried from Somolia through 9/11 and it resulted in the WTC disaster.> During that time period, we: 1. had our soldiers in Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia 2. supported Israel in her continued colonization 3. actively intervened in the internal affairs of just about every Muslim nation 4. didn't change our long-standing policy of destabilizing hostile regimes 5. did not respect the sovereignty of Muslim nations. This is the "measured" pre-9/11 neo-colonialism that fostered support for Al Queda. Post-9/11 policy shows a greater willingness to use American armies in the Middle East. A less "measured" imperialism. Both policies make us unsafe, because both policies (directly or through proxies) do continuous and massive violence to foreigners, and inevitably they will retaliate. As we would, if the positions were reversed. The idea of simply leaving them alone was not tried pre-9/11. And isn't being suggested now, as an alternative, by the Democrats. Of the leading Democratic candidates (Dean, Kerry, the General), none of them want to give control of Iraq back to the Iraqis. All of them, in one form or another, want to ensure a pro-American government there. This isn't going to work, any better than Bush's methods.