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: stockman_scott who wrote (126661)	3/20/2004 9:27:25 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

*My comment to Mead. Given how weak Saddam was, that was no excuse to keep bases in Saudi Arabia, and if we hadn't been there, there would be no Al Qaeda.* Hmmmm... Do you truly believe that US troops in SA was a significant motivation for the formation of AQ? Or that their absence would have prevented it's creation? If so I think it might not hurt you to visit a few Islamic revolutionaries. Brezezinski, of course, doesn't need to do that. I'm sure he met quite a few during his 444 days of dealing with hostage security. In any case I see no reason to trust his judgment as to what is or is not "secure." But perhaps you have something here. Maybe I should have asked Carl: Is "security," stability or democracy to be valued more highly? Frankly I am beginning to wonder whether or not we remember what democracy is, much less its comparative value. Lord... I wish I could speak Japanese. <vbg> 0\|0