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: KyrosL who wrote (127599)	3/28/2004 2:18:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Iraq war has caused hate for America in the Islamic world to hit record levels. It has also caused dislike for America to hit record levels, even among the populations of our allies. That is the undisputed fact. No, polls don't back that up. Anti-American levels were extremely high before 9/11; that's why the whole Arab Middle East threw a party on 9/11. Anti-American levels are still high, but they are not moving higher and are even nudging down by some polls I've seen (I don't remember where the links are offhand). Certainly the predictions of how the Arab street was gonna explode have not come to pass. Instead, we have the intriguing signs of a new breeze blowing in Arab cities, with demonstrations against their own governments getting a new tailwind as the Arab regimes are sweating under Bush's demands that they reform. Remember, much of Arab Middle East's hatred of the US was based, not just on the Israeli/Pal 'football match' (frankly a huge diversion and excuse, much-beloved by the governing elites), but on the often justified perception that America was supporting their own despotic dysfunctional governments.

To: KyrosL who wrote (127599)	3/28/2004 2:25:45 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm sorry, I can't deal with such amorphous stuff. The undeniable facts of the matter are that (1) hate of the US existed before 9/11 before any war took place, (2) we were nevertheless attacked by people whom I consider to be members of the lunatic fringe, and (3) there have been no terror attacks on US soil since the Iraq war began, suggesting that the war on terror declared after 9/11--2 1/2 years ago--has thus far been quite successful. Obviously, another catastrophic event would put a large hole in my thesis. I believe one will happen sooner or later because these events are quite difficult to prevent in an open and free society such as ours. Nonetheless, the thesis that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between Iraq and the WOT is to me laughable. So far, the WOT is an unqualified success, a judgment which I think the Iraq war has not changed. Your logic is flawed. Increased hate does not necessarily lead to increased terrorism. We may be hated by terror-sympathizers more than before for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that the sympathizers will inevitably engage in terrorism or that the committed pre-Iraq terrorists will do more than what they have planned or are planning as a direct consequence of the Iraq war. A successful war on terror leads to fewer terrorists. That their sympathizers may hate us for other reasons is irrelevant if they do not become terrorists themselves. And we know that only a very tiny fraction of militant Islamists are terrorists. This another of the zany ideas Clarke is selling along with his book. Domestically, no, there is no proof that the war in Iraq has lead to increased terrorism because such terrorism has so far not yet happened. It has increased in Europe, viz., Spain, but Madrid was a one-time event designed to affect a particular election which it succeeded in doing through no adroit thinking on AQ's part but because of the government's inept handling of the aftermath.