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 (130340)	4/28/2004 7:45:26 PM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, speaking of Theo-Facsism... "The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq, and the powerful role his religious beliefs played throughout that time. "Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . . I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness." The president told Woodward: "I am prepared to risk my presidency to do what I think is right. I was going to act. And if it could cost the presidency, I fully realized that. But I felt so strongly that it was the right thing to do that I was prepared to do so." Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." " Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who fought Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But, he added that the two had discussed developments in Iraq. "You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said." washingtonpost.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (130340)	4/28/2004 8:10:16 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>> It's taken Iran almost 20 years for that population to show the first major signs of disaffection with repressive and puritanical Theocracy.. it took the Irani people 25 years to overthrow the brutal dictator that the US installed in Iran to replace the democratically elected Mossadq government. Although most Americans are ignorant of that fact, I'm sure the well-informed are aware of it. You can make all the excuses you want. Like the US didn't want to have a socialist government. Or it wanted cheap oil. Or whatever. That is not an excuse. Even though the empire builders want it to be. OK, now that we've agreed on that. Let's think who was it that tossed out the Shah ? Was it a nice well-mannered western disposed moderate ? No. A milque toast like that would be killed if lucky, or tortured to death by the Savak. So it takes a vicious thug to over-throw a vicious thug. And generally only a strongly motivated ideologue would undertake the sacrifice it entails. With the single-minded obsession required for success. I couldn't do it, and I think neither could you. Because we are not vicious thugs. The basic mistake the US makes in foreign policy, is that it makes it impossible for anyone other than a gangster to survive anywhere it wants to meddle. And even the gangsters can't survive sometimes. As in Iraq now, or in Afghanistan earlier. And yes, I do now understand that the US did not purposely install the Taliban. They were merely the beneficiaries of US aid that was meant for anyone vicious enough to dislodge the Soviets from Afghanistan. And guess what ? A vicious thug does not become a mild-mannered democrat after he wins. He generally becomes even more vicious.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (130340)	4/29/2004 2:22:14 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "However, apparently these ideological terrorists CAN INTIMIDATE AND COW non-ideological people with a show of force. I guess the question is do we really believe in democracy enough to be willing to make the same sacrifices the militants are willing to make in spreading their Theo-Fascism." Your "guess" avoids the simple fact that the show of force put on by the "ideological terrorists" is far more effective than the show of force that the United States can put on, at least in terms of its effect on the "non-ideological" people. Think of it this way. If you assist the coalition, you, personally, will be assassinated, maybe along with your family. On the other hand, if you assist the insurgents, the coalition probably won't find out about it because their intelligence has been ruined by Iraqis who are more afraid of the insurgents than the are of those Americans who can't even speak Arabic and operate under much tighter rules of engagement. When we send out the gunships, they fire rounds only at the active fighters. The vast majority of those who assist the insurgents cannot be targeted because they do not use their weapons to call in airstrikes on themselves. What I'm saying is this: The people we kill in Falloujah are either armed warriors who fight despite their knowledge of the odds against them, and more or less random civilians. Killing the first part has no effect on the thousands of insurgents that assassinate collaborators. And it is these assassinations that have so hurt our intelligence gathering in Iraq. What's your solution again? -- Carl