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 (131431)	5/4/2004 8:07:19 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, but you seem to think attacking Iraq, which was a secular country, and not a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, will defeat people like the terrorists who were involved in 9/11. If you can't understand why that might seem like a very strange target to some people, especially given your interest in "neutering" young Muslims(unfortunate language on your part, imo), then I really don't know what to say to you. Because Iraq was a strange target, if you want to reduce Islamic hostility toward the West, and reduce the threat of an Islamicist theocracy in Iraq. Those folks who want a pan-Arab Caliphate have a lot more hope of it now, than they did when Saddam was in power.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (131431)	5/5/2004 12:54:07 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

These kids need to be going to school and learning science, technology, as well tolerance for different opinions and beliefs. Most--probably all--of the people posting on this board can get behind that statement. And as we're seeing, that's just not happening.. And it won't happen until the US uses its own power of intimidation and "persuasion" against those who have an interest in advocating intolerance.. But not that one. It seems to me and I would guess many of those who opposed the Iraqi action that we won't teach "tolerance for different opinions and beliefs" by using our "power of intimidation." At least not by using it in a war of choice--which I consider Iraq to have been, though not the bombing of Afghanistan. We had to do that, and we ought, IMO, to have done more there then. But I know what will be trotted out--but there were Saddam-Al Qaeda links as well. Sorry, I haven't been convinced of that. Not at least links that we needed to worry about in 2002, when we had a reasonably good opportunity to really get the leadership of Al Qaeda. And when we still had, prior to the Iraqi business heating up in the summer, the sympathy and support of much of the world. Well, the discussion is getting to feel like a therapy session that gets stuck in a time loop. I'm off to bed. It's late here.