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: Hawkmoon who wrote (127712)	3/29/2004 7:57:57 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "That's like claiming there would have been no attacks upon Americans during Desert Storm if the US hadn't responded to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait." While this is a true statement, it wasn't an option. We had to free Kuwait based on the principle of supporting an ally. Re: "There have been no attacks against Americans ON US SOIL, arguably because the Islamic militants are being required to exert their efforts towards thwarting the US move into their backyard." There have been arrests, so the attempts are continuing. And the arrests were made by the police, not the military. Given that we increased the amount of efforts spent on police work against Al Qaeda type terrorists, it's hardly any surprise that we're catching them before they blow stuff up more often than before. But all this is argument for the efficacy of police work against terrorism, not military. If the military were effective against terrorists, the police wouldn't be having to catch them and put them in jail. Re: "And thus far, more Iraqis civilians are dying than are US troops." What's your point? That Iraqi civilians don't have decent body armor? American civilians are just as exposed. The advantage we have is that Islamic fundamentalists stick out here like bastards at the family reunion. In Iraq, by contrast, they look like anybody else. Re: "And while this is nothing to cheer about, it is crucial towards dispelling the prevalent belief that suicide bombings by Islamic militants would never be used against fellow muslims." I've never heard of this prevalent belief before. The Moslems have been fighting viciously against each other for their whole history so it would come as a real shock to me. Maybe it was a belief that was prevalent only in your circles, LOL. Re: "Indeed, it is gradually depriving even the most denial ridden muslims of their conspiratorial argument that the Mossad or CIA was behind 9/11, and not muslims." You can always tell when someone is living in la-la land because in addition to denying what is plainly obvious on its face (for example, denying that Bush lied about WMDs), they have to change their version of reality as their old one gets tattered and worn. A great example of this is the Soviets, what with their air brushing of pictures and rewriting history books to eliminate names. Another great example of this is the Bush administration's constant adjustment of its reasoning for going into Iraq. Re: "It's called forward defense.. Something the US has practiced over and over again.. Attack the enemy in their own territory so they have fewer resources available to direct against the United States homeland." (a) We're not attacking the terrorists in Iraq because we don't know who they are. Our police forces there are ineffective because they are foreigners. (b) Instead of Iraq, our worst terror attacks were from people from Saudi Arabia, but we're not doing anything there. (c) It doesn't appear to me that we've reduced any resources that the terrorists had. Before we invaded, Iraq was not a significant resource for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Now they are. That's not a reduction, that's an INCREASE. Re: "We all know that the Islamists (militants or mere hardliners) have little ability to create a vibrant economy (look at Iran)." I wouldn't be so completely sure of this. A few years ago, you were sure that the Communists have little ability to create a vibrant economy, but now look at China. It only takes one country to make a counterexample, and there are very few Islamic Fundamentalist states that have even tried to improve their economy. What changed with China was that the government realized that the power of the country (i.e military, diplomatic and economic power) could not be increased without improving the economic condition of their people. As the same realization dawns on Islamic fundamentalists, they'll probably react the same way. I'm not saying that this will happen soon. It took the Communists many decades to change their way of looking at the issue of the private ownership of "the means of production", I would think that the Islamists could be in power for decades before they change either. But there are no guarantees, at least in the long run. Now it can be argued that the most religious parts of the US are also the ones that happen to be the most backwards, economically, but I would suggest that this may simply be a coincidence. Rural peoples tend to be more conservative, and also to be more backwards, economically. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127712)	3/29/2004 8:46:24 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>"There have been no attacks against Americans ON US SOIL, arguably because the Islamic militants are being required to exert their efforts towards thwarting the US move into their backyard."<< Let's see.......with the exception of Oklahoma City, we had no attacks "ON US SOIL" in 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000 and if I recall correctly we did some damage to the Serbs during that time which "arguably" explains why we have had no Serb attacks "ON US SOIL" during that time. Now since we did not invade any Islamic states in 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 2000 what "arguably" prevented Islamic militant attacks "ON US SOIL" in those years?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127712)	3/29/2004 10:07:50 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Indeed, it is gradually depriving even the most denial ridden muslims of their conspiratorial argument that the Mossad or CIA was behind 9/11, and not muslims....deep inside they are just as repulsed as we are by these actions. I recall hearing a prof named Marvin Zonis talk about Iran and Khomeini shortly after the Shah was forced to abdicate back in '79 or so. Zonis had done a lot of work on Iran, and had interviewed Khomeini in Paris while he was in exile a few years earlier. Khomeini was spouting the line that no Muslim could ever be unjust to another Muslim, and Zonis pointed out to him that his own enemy, the Shah, and the Shah's police, Savak were Muslims and were exiling, killing and imprisoning all sorts of other Muslims. "Ah," said Khomeini, leaning forward with a knowing glint in his eye, "he is a Jew, and is using agents of the Mossad for his dirty work, that is how they do it." Fortunately for Zonis, Khomeini didn't know that he is Jewish. My point, in case it isn't completely clear, is that the power of rationalization is such that people will believe anything they want to believe, evidence be damned. Look at this thread. All of us think that the people who oppose us are victims of absurd, scurrilous or naive rationalizations. That is, as Carl might say, the way human beings are constructed. Yes, I'm sure they are, as you say, repulsed. But Machiavelli pointed out long ago that one reason invaders who don't speak the language, practice the religion or know the customs of the country they invade have a hard time in the long run if they don't kill an large number of people (preferably all of them), is that they will never be trusted, even if they do help to overthrow a hated ruler. Five minutes of gratitude is all you can expect. The rest will be, thanks very much, now get out of here.