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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (80397)	10/24/2004 7:18:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

What struck me as moronic about Jane Galt's comments Where was this? Sorry for asking but the search isn't working yet. but her implication that it therefore wouldn't be so bad to elect Kerry even if he did decide to cut and run from the Iraq war. I am long on record here as opposed to cutting and running. (I think he's on record as opposing that, too, although I understand if you're sceptical about his record. <g>) The idea that if a war isn't per se existential, therefore it won't have very high costs down the road if you lose - that was the moronic idea. I won't give you an argument over that. Just because invading Iraq wasn't existential, that doesn't mean that there isn't a growing threat. Nor does it mean that there are no consequences of losing in Iraq. There is a big difference between taking a pass on a war and losing it once you're in it. They are men, fanatics, who have devoted their lives to our destruction. Sept 11th was one-trial learning about their seriousness, as far as I was concerned. I will repeat once again my standard reply to that. Yes, they are serious about causing our demise. But intention alone does not carry the day. You need means and opportunity, as they say on L&O, the holy trinity. Right now their means and opportunity are limited. Over time they may grow if we don't play our cards right. They may grow even if we do play our cards right, but right now we have room to be thoughtful and comprehensive and strategic. I think I take them more seriously than you do. I don't know that you take them more seriously than I do. Maybe. I suppose I'm more willing to risk minor hits than you are in the context of long war and an overall win for us. It's unlikely you can go through a whole war without losing a battle or two and I can be philosophical about that. And I think you overestimate their immediate capability, not their motivation but their capability. Long term I think I see the risk much as you do. I'm just not frantic about taking action immediately. Some aspects of this, the cultural aspects and the political change in the ME, have a pace of their own and we just have to wait out. You realize, of course, that "winning" in Iraq could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. It's a long war.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (80397)	10/25/2004 10:44:55 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793838

As far as Al Qaeda is concerned, this is absolutely an existential war. I think I take them more seriously than you do. I don't think they are 'insects'. They are men, fanatics, who have devoted their lives to our destruction. Sept 11th was one-trial learning about their seriousness, as far as I was concerned. We are perceived in the region to be just as weak and wavering, despite our obvious technological and financial advantages, as AQ is viewed as deadly, determined, and utterly committed. I would, however, no longer focus on AQ but on the Jihadist movement in general. It is which is not completely aligned with AQ, though it shares its goals and ideology. Zarqawi's recent declaration is proof. There is a pressing need to make this perception go away, but it will be tough to do since it was established long ago via the following: 1.- Desert One; 2.- The Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. 3.- Khobar Towers. 4.- Somalia. 5.- The first WTC bombing. 6.- The Cole bombing. 7.- The discovery of the plot to murder Geo. H. W. Bush. 8.- Tora Bora. I may have missed an incident or two. This laundry list of shame has cost us dearly. Each one of these incidents deserved a strong response, but we did nothing, thereby increasing the perception that we are in fact weak, that we waver, that we are, in a word, cowards. This list directly lead to 9/11 and to the present strength of the Jihadists. OBL obviously expected a response in Afghanistan, but he thought that he could manage it in much the same way that the Soviets were defeated. Until Tora Bora, our response was stellar. Iraq was the function of many things, including the fact that after 9/11 we could no longer count on the Saudis as friends. The Saudi Royals were in a pickle, do the bend to American pressure or do they accommodate a deadly enemy? That they chose to accommodate AQ is obvious, though they may live to regret this decision. The Iraq invasion was all about perceptions, to show the Jihadists and potential Jihadists that we are in fact resolute, that we are a big and powerful country that can absorb a lot of small hits, but that we will not countenance terrorism on a large scale. Moreover, since the Saudis were no longer dependable, a base for exerting our power had to be found. Iraq, the absolute gravity center of the region since the times it was known as Mesopotamia, fit the bill perfectly. That it was ruled by a homicidal maniac was simply what we call down here lagniappe. Electing Kerry will invite more terrorism and on a more massive scale because the perception will be that we are in fact weak and irresolute, deserving of attack. The Jihadists have one goal, the establishment of a Islam as the global religion. They are well-motivated, much more so than us. Perhaps we deserve catastrophic terrorism since we do our best to invite it. Electing Kerry would be further proof of our weakness.