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: cnyndwllr who wrote (130482)	4/29/2004 2:45:36 PM
From: Lou Weed	Respond to of 281500

<<Similarly, if we could build a consensus in the Middle East that we were not pro-Israeli and anti-Arab and, additionally that we're not crusaders or imperialists who supported every despot who gave us cheap oil, we might see less terrorism from those peoples.>> Well put.....why this piece of common sense evades the "consensus" thinking is downright scary! Then again as Twain put it......"who said sense was common?!?" MON

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130482)	4/29/2004 3:24:10 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

Hi: The world has never been such as safe place as we stay-at-home Americans have been led to believe. Those who ventured overseas to the ME or Africa to work in oil fields have known the hazards. We expect those 100 Senators and the House politicians to live up to their promises, and they try, by funding for police or airport security systems, but it is no longer enough. To maintain an apparently safe environment for people to llve study and work, we want to meet the terrorists as far from our shores as possible. To keep them occupied. Thats being done in the ME and in their eagerness to hurt the US they waste their manpower and resources waging losing battles against our best troops. The Administration is no longer promising to protect us from the next terrorist strike, and even Kerry would not be so foolish as to promise that. The best the government can do is work on preventing a major strike, and separating Saddam from his WMD's, missiles and nuclear plans was part of that effort. Mission accomplished. Our soldiers need confidence in themselves, and in their government, to be prepared for the long war on terror that lies ahead. Capable and willing to venture into strange lands to face the enemy encampments and nutralize their plans and power. They are getting that experience. We cannot let them down nor give them a guilt complex or a sense of failure for not adhering to a mystical plan for certain operations that may not be feasible. Guilt should not be too much of a problem, just show them reruns of the 911 videos. Or the trains in Spain. <<< When we have people in power who are willing to be diplomats, who will lead by example in terms of human rights and the rule of law and who will be seen as non-secular in their actions, then we may finally be able to move forward. In the meantime we'll just have to settle for hunting down, killing and foiling the plots of terrorists the best we can>>>> Nothing wrong with those concepts. The UN and US gave Saddam all the diplomacy he could handle for 11 years. I guess he choked on it all. N Korea is getting diplomats thrown at them 6 at a time, and we'll find out if that works. But in case diplomacy fails the sword or foil is being sharpened. Sig

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130482)	4/29/2004 3:43:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawkmoon, the world's a dangerous place and it's going to stay that way for a long time. No offence.. but you have a knack for the obvious.. The baby boom currently underway in the Mid-East is one of the more pressing dangers that faces the world.. Economic and political stagnation, combined with an aggressive and brutal religious militancy GUARANTEES that this world will be a dangerous place.. But it's not going to get less dangerous by sitting on our @sses and doing nothing to interdict and confront these militant ideologies and dispel the belief that "allah is with them".. They must be defeated.. And the muslim world must see that they are defeatable and that Allah is not with them, but with the average muslim who just wants to live a decent and properous live, raise a family, and worship Allah in peace. The Bush course of using and threatening massive military force against nations is counterproductive. I don't know about that.. It seemed to work with Qaddafi.. We caught him red-handed with nuclear technology last fall and a couple of months later he decided to "renounce" his WMD programs.. I think the threat of massive military force probably swayed his decision to a large degree.. if we controlled the governments of every Muslim/Arab nation in the world would we still have an Islamic terrorist problem? Why don't you ask yourself THIS.. If every government in the mid-east was directly accountable to its population by elections, where the people possessed ownership of the economy via property rights and a statuatory legal system that was enforced, do you think there would be a reason for the religious fanatics to be gaining favor? This is no different than hundreds of years ago when the Catholic church and secular governments competed for power over the future of the people.. There were quite a few bloody battles and war fought between monarchists and the various popes and bishops. But we've never had a major Christian theological regime (other than the Vatican). Now maybe you think we're fighting for imperialism.. But to contrary, I perceive that France was politically fighting to maintain its OWN imperialism in Iraq, by proxy.. If we could build democracy in the countries of the Middle East we would go a long way toward alleviating some of the circumstances that create the breeding ground for terrorism. It's awful hard to build a decent house on a rotten foundation. How long would it have taken to "pressure" Saddam to walk that path to democracy? He would have entered his grave first... Sometimes you have to tear the whole structure down and rebuild from the bottom up.. And that's what we've been trying to do in Iraq. And we're not getting a hell of lot of support from the UN, or certain countries who had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power. These are fine goals but they take a deft hand and a clear understanding of and respect for other cultures. Unfortunately, the Bush government seems intent on oppressive actions, lack of diplomacy and the use of massive military force in a way that assures that these goals are unlikely to be achieved. Hmm... I don't see the terrorists using a "deft hand".. They ARE using extremely violent military force to terrorize the entire Iraqi population into submission and subjugation.. We're obviously making mistakes.. We're human.. But we're also doing a lot of things right, such as not tolerating militant leaders to openly threaten social order and the rights of the overall population. When we have people in power who are willing to be diplomats, who will lead by example in terms of human rights and the rule of law and who will be seen as non-secular in their actions, then we may finally be able to move forward. Such as whom? And what rule of law are you talking about? The UN?? Hell, France, Germany, and Russia placed their own economic and personal financial interests ABOVE the interests of the UN by vetoing that final resolution directly authorizing military action in Iraq.. And they would have felt no problem with keeping 200,000 US/UK troops couped up in the summer heat in their Kuwaiti encampments... They certainly didn't offer any troops to help enforce those resolutions.. Methinks you need to spend less time trying to find fault with how the Bush administration allegedly violated international law and human rights, and LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE of how those other nations DIRECTLY violated those laws. Hawk

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130482)	4/29/2004 9:09:53 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

The Bush course of using and threatening massive military force against nations is counterproductive. That's open to debate: Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report released Thursday. The Patterns of Global Terrorism report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 -- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969. The figure marked a 45 percent decrease in attacks since 2001, but it did not include most of the attacks in Iraq, because attacks against combatants did not fit the U.S. definition of international terrorism. cnn.com

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130482)	4/30/2004 3:41:46 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Bush course of using and threatening massive military force against nations is counterproductive. More on the same subject: Message 20077808 A few highlights: The BBC reports that US analysis shows international terror attacks declined last year and the number of civilian deaths at a 30-year low: US government figures suggest that terrorist attacks have fallen to the lowest level for more than 30 years. The annual report records a slight fall in the number of international attacks last year and a dramatic decrease in the number of victims. And: Given the public nature of the Bush administration's attack on terrorist networks and their support, had the US effort not been effective, terrorists would have escalated their attacks in response to our actions. However, it appears that the broad, strategic approach to the war on terror is paying off. The Afghanistan and Iraq phases have overthrown regimes that supported terrorism, and the intelligence gathered during both phases has identified more terrorist cells and plots. Rather than destroying our ability to coordinate with other nations on intelligence and disarmament, international cooperation has improved... Granted, I'm just one person with one set of eyes, but it appears to me that your thesis is not quite the inescapably obvious truism you suggest.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130482)	4/30/2004 4:09:45 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 281500

The Bush course of using and threatening massive military force against nations is counterproductive. Yet more on the same subject: washtimes.com The U.S. military says "several thousand" foreign fighters are in Iraq...The invaders, who began entering Iraq in significant numbers in the summer, have emerged as a major stumbling block to turning over political power to an interim Iraqi authority on June 30...."The idea is to attack the United States and make it weak and make this appear to be a Muslim victory. They are trying to repeat what happened in Afghanistan," when Islamist fighters expelled the Soviet army. BUT: The number of invaders, however, is not reaching the mark of tens of thousands of fighters in Afghanistan 20 years ago. "It appears they are not coming out in the numbers al Qaeda had hoped," Mr. Schanzer said. He attributes the relatively small response to the United States and its allies having killed thousands of terrorists since the September 11 attacks.