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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (42796)	4/15/2004 5:10:01 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Hi Suma, Thanks so much for posting the text of OBL's tape. I responded to lurqer with my thoughts (which were far less articulate than his). I, too, wish we'd gone to the UN to ask for sanctions. However, it's my understanding that OBL never represented a country, rather a loose affiliation of Muslim extremists across several Muslim countries, Europe, and of course, the US. He's brilliantly slippery.

To: Suma who wrote (42796)	4/15/2004 7:21:23 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Do you think we might have gained by some diplomacy instead of a rush to war ? War ... war??? Hmmm. I believe the "War On Terror" is a PR phrase, and little more. Under it's guise, the Bush Admin has achieved much of it's preelection agenda - domestic and foreign. This includes obtaining a more compliant regime in Afghanistan - i.e. one that looks more favorably on Central Asian - Afghanistan - Pakistan oil and gas pipelines. I believe one of the reasons Afghanistan is currently the poor-boy-on-the-block, is the earlier ideas of massive oil and gas reserves in Central Asia have not been fulfilled. All the world knows (even though some still refuse to admit) that Iraq was part of the agenda prior to Bush's election. The stories of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz "chomping-at-the-bit to attack Iraq after 9-11 are now part of the "lore" of this Admin. The "enduring bases" currently being constructed in Iraq are meant to be part of the "enduring" legacy of the Iraqi incursion. The hegemony dreams so vividly exhibited in the writing's of the neo-cons (both at the PNAC site and elsewhere) are not dead. The Iraqi Tar Baby has (at most) merely put them on hold. Those "enduring bases" are meant to be stepping stones. There is a cultural war between western modernity and religious fundamentalism. And it's worldwide. What I believe 9-11 demonstrated was that the Arab theater of this cultural war needed to be addressed. And yes, you are correct. The first thing you do when combatting terrorists, is to separate them from the populace. Without the sympathy of the masses, they become vulnerable to standard law enforcement techniques. Immediately after 9-11 was the opportunity to make OBL a pariah even in the Arab world. Squandered, now OBL is viewed as a prophet who accurately predicted America would attack and occupy Arab lands. So, instead of separating OBL and his followers from the populace, they are now the heroes which the Arab youth seeks to emulate. JMO lurqer

To: Suma who wrote (42796)	4/16/2004 2:05:35 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

I cannot take exception with what you say but I wonder,speculate as it were as to whether,after 9/11 there could have been any appeasement. No. You do not simply ignore or talk about an act like that. You go to war. When we had the favor of the world would it not have been prudent to go to the U.N for condemnation of OBL and at the same time mediate with the Arab world to oppose this fanatic and his interpretation of the Koran.. Do you think we might have gained by some diplomacy instead of a rush to war ? So you honestly thinks those fanatics in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia .... that had considered us nothing but a target for decades would just TALK to us and reform? THey hadn't in those decades before. And what would lead you to believe, based on their records, that they spoke honestly unless you gave them reason to with a demonstration of armed might? This isn't a Sunday School picnic like Jimmy Carter seemed to think; it's international politics. It's a tough and dirty game. I equivocate on this because it seems that for every action there has to be an equal opposite reaction That's a law of physics. It's not a law of politics. There it's sometimes yes, sometimes no, and therefore no law. Saying that force never settled anything is simply silly. It settled the fate of Hitler and the Third Reich quite nicely. It settled the fate of the expansion of Islam itself into Europe at Vienna in 1683. They were driven back over the next two decades. Am I coming from being scared that we never will have peace now and that terrorism will be with us for decades.. or more. When has there ever been peace on Earth? Before this threat there was the Cold War. Before that, Nazism. Before that.... Go back through recorded history. You will find no time when there was no armed conflict. NO one ever spoke of appeasement "Appeasement" is a rather bad word for you to use. It brings to mind Neville Chamberlain and the consequences of his folly. He too wished to avoid war at all costs- -and got the largest one to date. He was soon replaced by Winston Churchill who said "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."