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 (128537)	4/6/2004 2:32:26 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<The Islamists want to defeat us, and they know that stirring up the American public would strengthen our resolve to stay in Iraq. So instead they are, by and large, leaving the American public alone (instead concentrating on weaker western targets like the Spanish public), and are concentrating on our troops in Iraq. They know that in the absence of terror attacks in the US, the American public will eventually force the American government (especially after the WMD fiasco) to eventually give up on Iraq. Now there's not a damned thing you can do to stop them from being successful in this part of the campaign, so you'd better start thinking about the next stage, and I agree with you that the terrorism gets fought here.>>> The error in your statement is this: Loyal Americans, and there are whole bunch of them, feel personally attacked whenever a serviceman is hurt in Iraq.It is considered a direct attack upon our way of life. You tend to assume there is a division between our Military and ordinary civilians. Yet behind each serviceman are all his relatives who are typically proud of his efforts in serving his country. So you are speaking for a minority who would prefer to have him or her driving 300hp cars on our freeways 5 days a week. Which is OK by me, as it keeps the Thread interesting. Those that consider a proper life is 30 years of dull boring job where he has less chance of growing up and discovering his true potential. That idealism will end soon if nothing is done to stop terrorism. So this war will continue. Sig

To: Bilow who wrote (128537)	4/6/2004 4:40:06 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

Bilow, there has already been success in Iraq, with which nearly everyone agrees. <I say that we never stood a chance in Iraq* and that we need to cut our losses and prepare for the next 9/11. You want to stay in Iraq.* > Uday and Qusay are dead and Saddam is in prison, his murderous regime has gone and won't be coming back. Iraqis for the most part agree with that process. King George II has had his revenge on Saddam and shown who was boss. He has had a lot of fun showing off how tough the USA is and how spectacularly devastating a USA military attack is. The victory took longer than I thought it would. Some of the drivers got lost on the way to Baghdad and they probably had tank traffic jams en route. Lots of soldiers have enjoyed playing bang bang [I watched them whooping with pleasure as their projectiles went exploding into enemy positions]. George's smirking announcement of his capture of Saddam in a spider hole showed what it was really all about. Don't mess with Skull and Bones men - the Jolly Roger is their emblem!http://www.bilderberg.org/skulbone.htm They aren't kidding. Politicians around the world have had a great time puffing themselves up, posturing and being seen on television. Lots of cash flow went to Halliburton, military equipment suppliers and swarms of others who got their piggy snouts in the $100 billion trough. It was all newly pixelated $$ by Uncle Al KBE who was in a dramatically expansionary monetary mode after the Biotelecosmictechdot.com implosion so spending it was always going to involve some profligacy by the politicians who get to do the spending. They've all had a lot of spending, which is what they love doing even more than being on television and preening themselves in front of the girls. Now what's happening is everyone is squabbling over the oil like a bunch of vultures at a carcass. The hyenas, lions and crocodiles are all wanting a piece of the action. There's snapping and biting at each other to clear away the other scavengers. If Iraqis are going to be left to their own devices in a month or so, then they all know that if they don't get in position to accept the payments for the oil flow, they are going to be left out in the desert sand. So, they are starting the fighting now, to get in position. Getting the USA and rest of the Cow out is the first requirement to getting hold of the spigots, especially if the USA isn't looking as though they will give some group a piece of the action. Those disaffected groups had better start positioning and the way to do it in those places is with the point of a gun, roadside bomb and rocket-propelled grenade. Cutting and running with significant objectives achieved might be the best course of action from the USA point of view. It never really was an objective to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. There are a billion or two people living without either freedom or democracy but they don't have oil. If freedom and democracy were the goals, the UN would have been converted to the NUN and very serious support given by the Cow to the NUN process rather than an erroneous pre-emptive action on behalf of the PNAC. Another thing that has been achieved is to show nasty regimes that they should not treat the USA military propensities lightly. The USA is not a peacenik. They love a fight and whoop with delight as their projectiles find their mark. They are not so thrilled when angry suicide attackers find revenge. Given the lack of a NUN, I'm happy enough for the USA to be top military dog, making, for example, North Korea and China rather fearful of precipitating attacks on South Korea or Taiwan. While Libya was working towards a truce for years, I'm sure the drama in Iraq made them more inclined to an earlier reconciliation than might otherwise have been the case. There's still no NUN in the offing, so it looks as though Iraq will be left to its own devices, with some USA/UN/Cow presence, much like Afghanistan, with a new-version Saddam, or three, or more, taking over various sectors and being no better than what went before. Dostum looks to me very much like a younger Saddam and while the USA has ditched Saddam, they have installed Dostum, a clone. It's going in circles if you ask me, but plus la change, as they say. Mqurice

To: Bilow who wrote (128537)	4/6/2004 11:20:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

What's your point? These countries (i.e. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) aren't "the Islamists". Carl, what is this "war on terror" you would have us fight? Hunker down behind even greater state security mechanisms (patriot act on steroids) in hopes that we can prevent the next major terrorist attack on this nation? Or shouldn't we be attacking and positively altering the conditions and leadership within the region where these terrorists are being created? You keep saying that by attacking Iraq we're only going to create even more terrorists willing to attack the US. But I assert that 9/11 created more potential recruits and sympathy for Al-Qaeda than the war on Iraq. Leaving the current regimes in place, with no pressure (or "spine strengthening") that requires them to moderate and modernize, would be a 100% certain guarantee of further attacks upon the US. Because Bin Laden and his ilk can readily point to the fact that the US has done nothing for the average Arab. We support corrupt regimes, permit their economies to stagnate, and support the Israelis against their "palestinian brothers" (not that they actually care too much about them either). You're simply not providing a workable solution that takes into account the economic stagnation, political corruption, and demographic changes within the mid-east. We're fighting a war on terror Carl. And to fight such a war, we simply have to take the battle to those who sought to bring the war to us. We have to stiffen the spines of Arab leadership, provide hope to moderate and progressive moderate in the region, and eliminate the sources of funding upon which the militants rely. And we simply can't do it by sitting on our fat @sses here across our ineffective ocean moats thinking we can avoid the next attack to be directed against us. If you're worried about inciting the muslim world against us, just wait until we have a WMD attack on a US city. There will be far greater numbers of people turning out in the Arab streets to applaud, as well as signing up for the next attack. We're going to be shedding blood in this war Carl. And this war is going to take time, step by step, country by country, militant by militant. And if we're unwilling to deal with Islamic militants in their own countries.. militants who continue to use Anti-American rhetoric to create their own cults of personality, but never solve the problems of their nations, then we really have to ask why we should even try to defend our own borders. We might as well just surrender and convert to Wahhabism. Hawk