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: h0db who wrote (131092)	5/3/2004 12:36:04 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Hawkmoon, your ranting about "islamists" shows a deep fear and concern that the situation in Iraq is not good, and not getting better. Your lack of concern about the issue displays an institutional ignorance about what the hell has been going on in the region over the past 20 years. It's not just Iraq.. I'm worried about the ENTIRE REGION. I'm worried about the populations of both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, where upwards of fully 1/2 the population is under the age of 18. I'm worried about the economic stagnation that will likely make those young people vulnerable to being recruited into Islamist groups. And if you're not worried about it, then I guess we'll just have to wait 5-10 years to see which one of us is correct. The great majority of Iraqis reject our presence in much the same way that an organism rejects foreign tissue. Most Iraqis see us as an alien army come to take away their identity. I don't disagree with much of what your friend discusses. But I would like to know what majority he is referring to? The Sunnis, who consider themselves the cultural majority, the Shiites, who consider themselves the pluralistic majority, or the Kurds, who consider themselves the national majority (because of the large numbers of Kurds living in neighboring countries). I certainly agree with having the UN involved in coordinating the new government. I've been in support of this ever since Saddam was overthrown... But we quickly saw that the UN was incompetent and risk-adverse.. Their headquarters were bombed and we've hardly seen hide nor hair of them until the recent oil for food scandal broke.. And there's little excuse for the UN "leadership" failing to become more involved in Iraq.. They claimed they wanted US forces to fall under UN control and Bush refused. But that should not have deterred them from stepping up and creating some measure of legitimacy for an interim goverment. Only in recent months do we see them taking on the role they were designed to perform.. And maybe there is some truth to the Bush administration placing too much faith in folks like Chalabi.. But he's only one person on a council of 25 members, most of whom didn't live outside of Iraq: news.bbc.co.uk Does this mean that the worldwide Jihadi war against the US is the same thing as the war in Iraq? No. It does not. That war is one in which the Jihadis intend to destroy us. They intend to attempt this on a world wide basis, and the outcome in Iraq has little to do with that. That war will go on and on and on, no matter what happens in Iraq. No offense to your friend, but what is he smoking? Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the world. The Islamists already are making their "play" in Saudi Arabia, albeit prematurely, in order to wrest control of those oil reserves from the Saudis.... Do either of you REALLY believe that control of that oil, and the financial resources, and global economic control it denotes, are not TOP PRIORITY for the "worldwide Jihadi" movement? How do you think they plan on paying for their Jihad? Selling Opium out of Afghanistan? These people need oil revenues... And anyone who thinks that they aren't after Iraq and Saudi Arabia are just ignoring reality.. I mean, put yourself in their place h0db.. Just try and think like they do for a moment, will ya? You can't run an economy for crap (though you think you can), and you need an easy source of Billions of dollars to wage your Jihad, as well as millions of young recruits to become your martyrs.. Furthermore, you want to become the center of gravity for the entire muslim world.. There are only two nations that fulfill such a criteria.. Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Now if neither you, nor your friend, can see that, then I suggest you sign up to a program at NDU (Fort McNair).. Y'all might thing that having the UN involved in Iraq will end the insurgency, but I believe you're sadly mistaken. The Islamists will continue until they no longer have domestic support.. Because the stakes are too high (with regard to being seen as victorious, and the prize (oil revenues) is just to great, for them to back off. Btw, I definitely agree that we should not have removed any of our armored forces until we had a changeover in the government. We're going to be there for years, and it made no sense to remove our armour only to move it back (although I'm hearing that 1st Cav has a newer version of the Force XXI digitization, and thus was not trained to use 4th ID's equipment). As for making mistakes, if you've REALLY been in the military for 19 years, then you know no plan survives first contact with the enemyl. You adapt as you discover obstacles. You operate on the process of frag orders as the situation dictates, not according to some grand preconceived warplan.. However, I have criticized that relative lack of understanding what was required to initiate a massive humanitarian relief process, or financing it. We should not have had to rely upon confiscated governmental funds to "wage the peace".. But let's also face the reality that we had a false expectation that the UN was going to step up to its responsibility and organize reconstruction efforts. Hawk

To: h0db who wrote (131092)	5/3/2004 1:29:33 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<I received the following from a friend much more knowledgable in these matters than I. I apologize for the length >>> Your friend seems to have a good grasp of the situation. <<< Through that lens they view everything we do with deep suspicion and a desire to see us leave. Will they be better off when we are gone? No. They will not be better off, but that has never proven a deterrent to revolt on the part of any people under occupation by an alien army. Within this context the resistance grows. It waxes and wanes not according to some sort of "fever chart" of hostilities between our soldiers and the insurgents. No. It waxes and wanes according to the perception of the Iraqi people of the effectiveness of resistance efforts. When the insurgents are effective it spreads to other places and groups>>> Al Sadr went to Fallugha , a hotbed of insurgents and Saddam supporters and tried to start a counrywide revolt. How did it work -not good at all. Our forces came in immediately and pounded the city. Those older and richer citizens with property and businesses who tended to side with the insurgents cannot be happy over the results. No military gains, no forcing Americans out, much loss of Iraqi lives and property with some being forced to leave the city. Which Iraqi city will be next to openly support and side with insurgents and get the same treatment .? Not as many as there was while ago. And Al Jazeera actually might help our cause by exagerrating the damages caused. He says the Iraqis will not be better off when we leave, which is disputable. If they dont have a civil war, they could be far better off in the way we measure things. They will have control of their own destiny, there is enough oil money that every Iraqi could be a millionaire ( but now oil prices have to increase before that happens). And the country is being rebuilt to better standards that before. Schools, power, water, etc. Will the Iraqis like us more, or hate us less when we leave? We are going to be around that country for a long time and we will help them whether they like it or not. I wouldn't wait for many letters of appreciation. Sig

To: h0db who wrote (131092)	5/3/2004 4:47:49 AM
From: salemas	Respond to of 281500

Very well written post but let me take exception to the following statement; "We seem to want to believe that because our intentions toward Iraq are good, it must be that the great majority of Iraqis are appreciative of our good intentions and are grateful" The problem is the majority of Iraqis are convinced that your intensions are not "good" They are convinced you invaded Iraq because of its oil and because of the Israeli influence on your politicians. The average American don't know that and the poor soldier on the ground don't know that, so they keep wondering, why they hate us? The answer is simple, till Israel to cut the crab and get out of the territories it does not own. Can any American politician dare to do that? If this happened, you ill see many Iraqis and many Arabs "Love you". Even many “Jihadi Terrorists" will find no reason to continue there crazy campaign

To: h0db who wrote (131092)	5/3/2004 4:49:33 AM
From: salemas	Respond to of 281500

Very well written post but let me take exception to the following statement; "We seem to want to believe that because our intentions toward Iraq are good, it must be that the great majority of Iraqis are appreciative of our good intentions and are grateful" The problem is the majority of Iraqis are convinced that your intentions are not "good" They are convinced you invaded Iraq because of its oil and because of the Israeli influence on your politicians. The average American don't know that and the poor soldier on the ground don't know that, so they keep wondering, why they hate us? The answer is simple, till Israel to cut the crab and get out of the territories it does not own. Can any American politician dare to do that? If this happened, you ill see many Iraqis and many Arabs "Love you". Even many “Jihadi Terrorists" will find no reason to continue there crazy campaign

To: h0db who wrote (131092)	5/3/2004 2:06:53 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That war will go on and on and on, no matter what happens in Iraq. Wrong, and silly. If the coalition succeeds in interdicting resources that the jihadis have hithertofore had in Iraq, then that's resources they won't have in the future. Which is pretty much all we can do, with respect to the jihadis. We aren't going to change their minds, so all we can do is make it harder for them to do what they do. Their goals haven't changed in, what, 13, 14 centuries? When Muslim countries make it harder on them to operate, then that makes it easier on us. When their countries agree with their goals, we have outright war. Right now we're somewhere in the middle, much closer to easy than outright war, I'd say.

To: h0db who wrote (131092)	5/3/2004 9:33:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do either of you REALLY believe that control of that oil, and the financial resources, and global economic control it denotes, are not TOP PRIORITY for the "worldwide Jihadi" movement? How do you think they plan on paying for their Jihad? Selling Opium out of Afghanistan? Btw h0db.. I was kind of hoping that you'd respond to the above comments I posted in response to your belief that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror.. Can you explain why the Islamist would not be highly interested in controlling both Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Hawk