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: Maurice Winn who wrote (132215)	5/8/2004 1:02:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Rather than invading Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia and so on, to get rid of the mullahs and mania, it's better to defend the homeland and keep Islam in its own zone. And I think that's what we're doing... Listen.. few people truly realize the role that ISI and Saudi Intelligence played in creating the Taliban and encouraging this Wahhabist/Qutbist form of Islamic militancy.. Apparently they believed it would be a weapon they could wield against Iran on its eastern border and stabilizing Pakistan's western frontier.. However, it backfired when Bin Laden directly attacked the US. But it still took time (and the effort is still obviously in progress) with regard to Pakistan asserting control over its own "wild, wild west" and dealing with the tension over Kashmir between them and India. Musharraf has a tenous control over portions of Pakistan and we risked the country collapsing into outright civil war (which would be bad).. What matters is what the heck Pakistan has done and is doing with their nuclear bombs. Agreed.. which is why we went to such efforts to expose Khan and expose the complicity of some of the ISI leadership so that Musharraf would be able to increase his power in the country. Should Musharraf fall and the Islamists take over, you can bet that India may, just may, take pre-emptive action themselves and the region will erupt in massive conflict. I have no desire, nor do I see the need, to invade Iran. I believe that government will fall on its own as its young adults increasingly seek change.. As for Indonesia, that's a real challege, but politically we might be able to isolate it far more easily than we could Iraq. But IMO, the geo-political gambit underway by the Islamists is to control the oil fields of both Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I believe this has always been their goal, but they were awaiting the time when the conditions would be ripe to completely overthrow the existing governments and assume control.. And I beleive that the US overthrow of Saddam has severely disrupted the timetable of the Islamists and forced them to fight (and expose their terrorist networks) far sooner than they were originally planning to do.. Osama is already after the UN. He is certainly sensible enough to see where the next move is likely to come from and is keen to terrorize UN staff, starting at the top. What's needed is not just to shove an ill-designed UN into the breech, only to see further failure, the need is to rev up the UN into the serious geopolitical entity it should have been for a couple of decades now. I would concur.. If the UN can't step to the challenges (and threats) posed by Islamists such as Bin Laden (and his own powerful supporters), then it probably will collapse an a failed entity. But I don't believe we're going to permit that to happen. It serves a good purpose to internationalize the effort over terrorism. Hawk