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: KyrosL who wrote (75433)	10/7/2004 9:33:15 AM
From: Neil H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

"The war in Iraq not only was not helpful in the WOT but was counterproductive -- in other words, it helped islamic terror." It has not helped the islamic terror as you state. It is bringing the terrorists(existing) to a central point where they are being eliminated. What else has happened? Pakistan govt. which previously supported Taliban is hunting Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Pakistan eliminated their dispersal of Nuke technology Libya has finally quit supporting terrorism and given up Nuke efforts and is actually being helpful. Unusual that this happened only after we took out Saddam. Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other Arabian Peninsula countries are actively hunting down and killing Al-Qaeda where previously they turned a blind eye. Guess what also in Saudi, first time municipal elections are to be held. Iraq will turn out good if we stay the course. It is tough now but a lot is on the line. Kerry is making it worse by making this effort political. It only emboldens the enemy. Oh and by the way I live in the Middle East and have for 20 years so know the culture, politics and can see the good things that are happening, even if it may take a while for them to be seen by the media(and you). And while we are on foreign policy, we may have had a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan if not for US intervention. Now for the first time they are ironing out their differences. Regards Neil

To: KyrosL who wrote (75433)	10/7/2004 11:49:36 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

I don't think the analogy is a good one. Britain was attacked by the then world's only military superpower and was fighting for its life. It had no choise but to fight, alone or not. Quite untrue, check your history! Britain declared war because Hitler attacked Poland, not Britain. It only came under attack after it declared war, well after. If Britain had said, no skin off our nose, as they had for Czechoslovakia the year before, they could have avoided the war. Hitler always thought well of Britain and would have been open to some negotitated client state arrangement. Now, you could have argued in 1940 that Britain and France actually helped the Nazi cause by giving them the war they desired. Open war will always bring both sides to the fore with more clamor and bloodshed than a papered-over peace. But the Nazis weren't exactly strenghthened in the end, were they?