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: Sam who wrote (122423)	12/28/2003 10:39:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem is, is the job they are being asked to do doable? And the alternative solution is? How about tucking our tails between our legs and relegating millions of people to domination and brain-washing by Islamic militants? How about continuing the status quo of supporting, or tolerating, repressive regimes who cannot deal with the demographic explosion and economic deterioration which is confronting them? Constructive criticism is fine Sam.. But when one criticizes, it's to be expected that they will be asked to provide a viable alternative.. And thus far, none of the current democratic candidates has mentioned any (except in the broadest, most simplistic, terms). Personally, I'm not sure if we'll be able to gain the upper hand in this war without being required to endure a full mobilization of our war making capacity. Let a civil war break out in Saudi Arabia and we may find ourselves having to do just that.. The Iranians will not likely stand by and watch the Wahabbis massacre millions of Shiites. Hawk

To: Sam who wrote (122423)	12/29/2003 1:31:49 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 281500

I agree that the Vietnam analogy doesn't fit this situation very in many respects, but it does fit in one very important respect: we are fighting a group of trained military men in their homeland. Where the fighting takes place makes all the difference. Sam, I agree with that generally. However an insurgency requires significant outside support to succeed. Iraqui insurgents are not getting that. They, unlike the NVA, are not getting large, regular shipments of Chinese and Russian advisors, equipment and arms. While they collect their strength on what they consider the front. As I'm sure you know, Pakistan, unlike Iraq, really does have WMDs. And lots of mosques, teaching the "true" way. Pakistan is currently being very cooperative in the war on terrorism. Though not widely reported, we are conducting OPS in Pakistan everyday. Are you suggesting we free saddam, leave Iraq, and attack Pakistan? BTW Iraq does not lack for similar mosques. I agree with your fundamental point that many other countries have or have potential to become a problem. I also agree with GWB's strategy to eliminate the most difficult known problems first. I certainly like it better than the clinton strategy of blowing up unoccupied tents in the desert with cruise missiles. In my previous post, I listed a long list of problem areas and countries that are going to have to be addressed. I did not include Spain, England, Turkey, Holland, Pakistan and 57 other countries, all of whom have terrorists in their midst, because these countries are cooperating. If you were an insurance company, what premium, if any, would you charge to insure Musharref right now? Musharref is a soldier. He knows how to defend himself. He has been shot at twice in a month. Soldiers can dust that level of action off just as he has done. We will know more about Pakistan after their general elections. For now, they have joined us in the war AGAINST international terrorism. uw