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: epicure who wrote (131440)	5/5/2004 8:56:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| 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. And you think these car bombers just spontaneously emerged without having spent years being mentally "conditioned" by Iraqi Clerics to be willing to commit these suicide attacks? Who are you trying to kid, except yourself? The reality is that Saddam's regime could not have likely held out for more than another 5 years, IMO.. The demographics of the situation, combined with the sanctions limiting trade with Iraq, would have created tremendous pressures upon his regime. 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. Strange target?? Iraq was a hotbed of support for terrorism, both logistically, financially, and spiritually. Saddam may have been smart enough to keep enough "cut-outs" between him and the actual terrorist groups, but few can argue that he didn't advocate terrorism.. He sheltered Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, financing the latter with 11 million barrels of oil (why?). He also tolerated Ansar Al-Islam, possibly as a go-between to Bin Laden.. 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. But the crux of the issue is that fundamentalists are threatening to overturn the corrupt and autocratic regimes of the region. The only question is whether it would be Iranian, or Wahhabist militancy.. And these movements are able to gain such strength because we've DONE LITTERALLY NOTHING to promote political and economic progress in the region.. All the moderates are seeking refuge in the West, leaving only the militants behind. This is not a situation we can long permit to continue. In sum, revolution is going to spread throughout the region. It can either be democratic, or it will be Islamist. The trend is pretty clear.. And if we're unwilling to fight on behalf of moderates in order to promote democratic reforms as hard as the militants are to spread their theocratic fascism, then the entire region will be lost to their ideology. Hawk