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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (6065)	11/20/2003 5:04:49 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The Al-Qaeda which was on the run in Afghanistan took time to regroup. Now they have come back with twice the venom with the latest series of bombings in Turkey. If you believe that Al Qaeda has been ignored since we invaded Afghanistan, you haven't been paying much attention. Or your attention has been selective. Either way. Let us remember that the US decided to go it alone and didn't care what the world had to say. The US invaded Iraq with 30 nations. Not exactly "alone". US foreign policy is not dictated by France, Germany, and Russia, who were the primary obstruction to the war and, in the case of France and Russia, the primary benefactors of Saddam Hussein's continuance in power. That is what we had during the Clinton years. Locate the hubs of terrorists activity and shoot then down with sophisticated missiles. That's a joke, right? LOL! Over half of Al Qaeda's command has been captured or killed since October 2001. How many, precisely, were captured or killed on Clinton's watch? Let me save you the trouble: zero. Although I'm sure the Tomahawks we wasted on OBL killed a goat or two. Derek

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (6065)	11/20/2003 2:00:29 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

While Bush diverted his attention from the war in Afghanistan to "regime change" in Iraq to avenge the assasination attempt on his father by leading the Americans to believe of a "imminent threat" from Iraqi WMD. Chinu.. there is very little difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. If anything, we had LESS justification in attacking Afghanistan than we did in Iraq. We never had definitive proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 until almost a year later when he admitted to being behind the attack. Thus, we enacted "regime change" in Afghanistan on a "hunch", with no direct UN permission to use force. UNSC 1267, and 1333/1363 wwere the justification for the US invasion of Afghanistan. And I didn't see the EU members of the UN stepping in and telling the US that we couldn't overthrow the Taliban. Why not? While Cheney and Rumsfeld served the oil lobby interests to grab the Iraqi oilfields and encouraged the Iraqi invasion. As if Chirac and Putin weren't serving THEIR OWN oil interests in trying to preserve Saddam's regime?? There's FAR MORE DIRECT EVIDENCE of an "oil connection" being behind their opposition to enforcing those 17 UNSC resolutions than their is for the US trying to "grab" Iraqi oilfields. In fact, Iraqis are in charge of their oil right now. And we're SPENDING MONEY to protect their ability to pump it and earn hard currency for THEMSELVES, not the US. The French and Russians were trying to preserve Saddam's regime because they knew their oil concessions, as well as the billions in debt he owed them, would fly out the window once another government replaced him. So if you want to argue oil, be prepared to analyze how European oil interests impacted their willingness to avoid enforcing the UN resolutions against Iraq, and how they use the UNSC to turn the UN into a blustering paper tiger and an international laughing stock. Hawk