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 (131830)	5/6/2004 3:17:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

You won't like the slowness of my solution. It involves taking a couple of body shots and letting the opponent wear down so that we can land that shot to his jaw. It involves having the patience to wait and lose a couple of battles in order to win the war. It's about "he who laughs last, laughs loudest." Kind of risky at this point, don't you think? After all, these are not the Vietnamese.. This is a ruthless militant ideological movement rivaling the brutality and imperial aspirations of Nazism and Communism.. And they are seeking to control the two largest supplies of oil on the planet. What impact is that going to have global economic growth? And what alliances will result with nations possessing nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities more than willing to see them used by non-state actors (terrorists) against the US homeland? Do you want turn the United States into Fortress Amerika, deport all muslims (or put them internment camps)? We should let the Iraqis know that we are NOT committed to "assuring a democratic Iraq." Well, wouldn't that send an interesting signal.. That could be good, or it could be bad.. It might motivate moderate Iraqis to stand up and refuse to permit themselves to be subjugated by another dictatorship, OR it could result in their adopting another fatalistic acceptance of decades more of brutal rule.. (with the resultant exodus to western societies of millions of them)... In other words we should tell them what we tell our children when they leave home; "you must create a life of your own." Even if you know your children are intent on a life of violent crime, and possibly patricide and matricide? If you start with the assumption, as I do, that sovereign people have the right to conduct their own affairs as long as they don't imminently threaten our security, then our role in "nation building" is limited to rebuilding those nations that we had to "break" because of necessary wars. And what was Desert Storm all about? Was that not a threat to our national economic security as well as regional stability? Your argument would suggest that inherently we should not have defended Kuwait, or repulsed the Iraqi invaders. But assuming that's not how you feel, then isn't implicit that, once they were defeated, we had an obligation to ensure that Saddam never again repeated his "mother of all miscalculations"? Iran is a good example. In Iran we've been dealing with a relatively radical Islamic militancy that is, in effect, in control of the country. It seems, however, that the Iranian people have learned, and are learning, that the theory of life under that theocracy are not the panacea that some would have believed. And indeed that's why I'm less concerned about Shiite militancy than I am about Wahhabist/salfist/Qutbist militancy rising up amongst the Shah-like regimes of the region. Iranian youth have no one to blame for their current situation but the Shiite militants and hardliners. HOWEVER, the Sunnis DO, in part directly attributable to US complicity in supporting many of these regimes. And whereas we might be willing to tolerate the Saudi Royals, so long as they are seek to quell the militants eminating from their "loins", Saddam was another matter all together.. For one thing, we couldn't even discern the status of his WMDs.. So what was our actual ability to discern his complicity in supporting certain Islamic movements to destabilize the region and possibly submit himself as a potential leader on their behalf (he rules the kingdom, they rule the hearts)? I certainly saw the prospect of Saddam allying with the Wahhabist/Qubists in order to counter-act the rising Shiite militancy within Iraq. And that's a path I doubt he could have retreated from if he wished to retain power (especially in like of the end of the cold war between the US and Soviets on which he had depended). When injured we should strike against those that inflicted the injury. Not only that, but we should ALSO seek to deprive them of that which they desperately require in order to carry on their Jihad, access and control over the fantastic wealth of the region's oil supplies. Hawk