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: h0db who wrote (132660)	5/11/2004 7:51:10 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

>>>Nothing has done more to advance the strategic cause of Islamic fundamentalism than this war>>>> And nothing has shown better the viciousness, the true character,and the widespread growth of terrorist organizations in recent years when nobody was on watch. And the importance of having finally taken action to stop them now from acquiring WMD's and to wipe out or cripple the growth of their cells wherever they are located. Sig

To: h0db who wrote (132660)	5/12/2004 2:49:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Pandora's Box argument was advanced 13 years ago, as a very compelling reason why we should not pursue regime change then. Certainly that was the perception.. But then again, with our 20/20 hindsight, it was also thought that Saddam would not long survive as a political force. But he surprised us all with this intransigence.. But all during that period Saddam recognized that his regime was facing a growing threat from Islamists and he attempted to co-opt them into backing him, as well as attempting to endear himself through a sudden Islamic personal epiphany.. The trend for Saddam is the same as it is for most of the non-democratic and autocratic regimes in the region. They will likely fall, or be required to be even more repressive, in the face of growing Islamist militant support. Don't think such a scenario is so far-fetched. Recall that such "faustian bargains" between secular rulers and powerful Islamic leaders has been the stock and trade of the mid-east for decades (certainly in Saudi Arabia). And since those regimes are seen as being "puppets" of American foreign policy, their oppression would place even greater responsibility upon our shoulders to the point where we would likely see happen to them, what happened to the Shah. Recall that we chose to ignore the forces that were building in Iran prior to the fall of the Peacock Throne. And the result was 20 years of Islamic extremism and instability throughout the region, fueled by Iranian oil exports. What's going to be the result were the two coutries possessing the largest reserves of oil on the planet, to fall under control of the militants?? Nothing has done more to advance the strategic cause of Islamic fundamentalism than this war. Maybe in the short term (but the jury's still out even there).. But in the long term, replacing the current corrupt and economically stagnant systems and integrating them into the global economy will be the best chance of short-circuiting the attraction to Islamic militancy, IMO. Because those types of movements generally only prosper in societies that are economically and politically dysfunctional and where dispossessed and frustrated masses provide a large human resource pool from which to draw their foot soldiers.. Ignore it all you want h0db.. But the Mid-East is involved in a tremendous baby-boom which has yet to determine what side they want to be on.. The only chance we have is to be more involved in providing political, social, and economic solutions (or the perception of such) than are the Islamist militants with their "return to the way of Allah" mentality. Hawk