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: Bilow who wrote (127716)	3/29/2004 9:33:59 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

While this is a true statement, it wasn't an option. We had to free Kuwait based on the principle of supporting an ally. Why? And what kind of Alliance did we have with Kuwait? Was it mutual? We did it because it was in our interest (and that of the global economy) to do so. If the military were effective against terrorists, the police wouldn't be having to catch them and put them in jail. I'd say we were pretty damn effective in Afghanistan. And the Pakis are finally showing some spine and might increasing their effectiveness in their NW provinces. The real issue is that I want foreign governments to put these terrorists into THEIR own jails, before they have a chance to reach our shores. And unfortunately, most governments are unwilling to do this when it might result in their political leaders being assassinated. They need some "motivation" to do the right thing, as well as reassurance that the US will be there to assist the moderates and modernists with fighting their extremists. And we can't do this from behind a TV set or a continental battlement. We have to engage these terrorists where they live, root them out, and at the same time pressuring many of these corrupt regimes to make the necessary socio-economic changes that will decrease the pool of potential fanatics. 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 you need to do a bit more reading. Hell, all you had to do was watch the news reports from the Mid-East after 9/11 and the absolute refusal to believe that muslims would commit such an act. It went right along with the conspiracy theories that there were no Jews at the WTC that day because they had been warned to stay away by Mossad. Thomas Friedman goes into some length about his observations of this belief, encountered during his travels in the region. Maybe you should start there. But on the other hand... I'm still waiting for the waves of muslim terrorists you and so many others were warning us about prior to the war. I thought the Arab street was supposed to rise up by the millions? 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. Obviously you aren't familiar with the concept of Scienter. You can't lie about something if you really believe its the truth. You can be mistaken, but that's not a lie... But the only thing Bush seems to be mistaken about seems to be the belief that they were certain that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. But even there, they were relying upon the best information available from UNSCOM, US intelligence analysis, as well as other foreign intelligence services. But even more important, you seem to be quite pleased to proliferate the ABSOLUTE LIE that Saddam was not engaged in WMD research and developement. David Kay cited just the opposite, declaring that Saddam had taken over DIRECT CONTROL over a surreptitious WMD program that could be quickly turned into production once the sanctions were lifted. Thus, it is YOU, not Bush, who is lying... (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. No duh... And that's why the Iraqi police and military will be the deciding force in destroying these terrorist networks, as it should be. After all, I doubt many of these Iraqi policemen want to find themselves working for Islamic Fanatics. (b) Instead of Iraq, our worst terror attacks were from people from Saudi Arabia, but we're not doing anything there. What would you have us do, invade the largest provider of oil in the world? Invade the very heart of Islam? While I completely agree with you about the fact that the Saudis have both tolerated, and in many cases, supported Islamic militants, I personally believe it was more appropriate to send the "message" to the Saudis that we were dead serious about confronting Islamic militancy.. And the attacks in Riyadh last May finally seemed to wake the corrupt Saudi royal family into understanding just how much of a threat these militants have become. But I'm not ruling out future military action against Saudi Arabia, should we find they had some direct complicity in 9/11. But for the meantime, I'm content to try and see the US make Iraq a successful rival to SA in the oil markets. Because like it or not, the global economy, especially the developing world, relies upon oil. And you don't cut off your nose to spite your face. (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. I don't find them directing their attacks against the US either. One thing you need to remember Carl is that Saddam's regime was likely on it's last legs. It's not quite sure just what kind of Islamic militancy would have evolved in the turmoil of a post-Saddam regime. But it's clear that he harbored Ansar Al-Salam within Iraq. And repressing the Islamist militants via corrupt and totalitarian proxies will only work for so long. Eventually you have recognize that this militancy comes as a result of economic and social despair, as well as repression. If you don't deal with those conditions, all you have a ticking time bomb waiting for a match. Hawk