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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (43059)	5/9/2004 11:51:07 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793755

In a nutshell, I'm becoming convinced that invading the border territories of Pakistan or even capturing OBL will not be a panacea. I agree about OBL. OBL retains mystique and an aura but he has little to no day to day effectiveness. But the Muslim militant extremists capable and motivated to attacking us are 15 million strong. They have many leaders. The Pakistan red line problem is not acute. We operate on both sides.

To: carranza2 who wrote (43059)	5/11/2004 1:31:03 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

My point is that violating the territorial integrity of an ally--Pakistan--is not going to help assist anti-terror efforts as much as many would think because the web of terror is far more ubiquitous than we know... Invading Pakistan's border territories would under the circumstances have no effect on terror. From a military perspective the effect will be minimal. From a psychological perspective the effect will be enormous. Every Muslim on earth would know that Osama was sitting in a protected zone thumbing his nose at us, and that would not be a good thing. Even if we could render him and his immediate allies militarily inutile, we can't afford to have that happen. However, we can't go into Pakistan. I wonder, when push comes to shove, how secure Musharraf will be, how much influence we will have over him, and how much he will have over the military and the NWFP? Big questions. Not being asked much, though. All the attention is on Iraq, and it will stay there for a while. Unless, of course, some bearded nutter takes over Islamabad, sends the bad boys into Kashmir, and threatens to nuke India if the people behind the Gujarat riots aren't publicly beheaded. O Happy Day. I just can't think of anything particularly effective that we might do Neither can I. Of course I don't know much about Saudi Arabia. I do have this sneaking suspicion that if we put the problem at the top of the table and devoted all possible resources to devising a solution, we might come up with something.

To: carranza2 who wrote (43059)	5/11/2004 9:28:49 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 793755

I just can't think of anything particularly effective that we might do that would have a short term positive effect on the prospects of terror in the US. Diplomatic pressure, tracking of finances, better cooperation, etc., the obvious things, are probably being done already. These "obvious things" have been undermined by the invasion of Iraq--or perhaps more precisely, by the way we went about doing it. But, in accordance with the modus operandi of the current admin, we could invade another Arab country that is aiding terrorists. Like Syria, for example. Or Iran. Heck, both of them. Take 'em out, after all it is those damn foreign influences that are wrecking our noble efforts in Iraq. Shock and awe 'em. Then everyone will know how serious we are. Then democracy will flourish from sea to sand to the mighty Euphrates.