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: carranza2 who wrote (149351)	10/27/2004 2:43:15 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that if all that were to happen, it would be a very bad thing. And it is within the realm of possibility that it could happen. It is also very much within the realm of possibility that nothing remotely like that happens. Suleyman kicked some serious butt in his time, but even he didn't bring the west to its knees. "Imagine that countries such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Emirates, Yemen and Qatar are charter members." I do not think it is remotely possible that Saudi Arabia and Iran would both be charter members of anything. Same goes for Iran and Pakistan. Prior to the invasion, the joinder of Iran and Iraq was also unthinkable, though now it is a definite possibility. But my primary concern is that you have morphed a terrorist attack into a crusade against jihadists. Personally jihadists don't even break into my Top Fifty List Of Worries. I don't live in their world, and they don't live in mine. We are oceans apart. Jihadists are a problem for the middle east, not for the United States. The problem of the United States is anti-American terrorists. Even today most jihadists would not touch the U.S. with a ten foot pole. I think what we should be doing is making sure that NONE of them are willing to touch us with a ten foot pole for fear of the consequences. What they do in the middle east is their business, so long as they don't touch us. To me the middle east is nothing but a big gas station.

To: carranza2 who wrote (149351)	10/27/2004 3:08:04 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Economic warfare works in both directions. Remove the buyers from the Middle East and suddenly there are no functioning economies there. The lack of a long term plan to reduce energy dependence is troubling and Bush hasn't addressed this at all. Maybe its too "haaard". There was a reason for my pointing out energy usage statistics. 4% of the world (the US) uses 25% of the energy of which a substantial percentage comes from oil and most of that is imported -- That's the weakness facing the US... not geographic boundaries and potential future alliances. As individuals we are not blameless. Who owns a SUV? Who drives to the corner store 10 blocks away? The 1970's taught America that you could reduce consumption and still have a life. We need to return to that, but go far beyond...

To: carranza2 who wrote (149351)	10/27/2004 4:32:36 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Carranza, let me respond to two assertions you've made in two separate posts. First, you say; "Let me make it clear that I think the reasons for the invasion were never fully articulated because they could not be articulated in public. I think they were sound but that their execution has been very poor. This kind of reasoning supports too much. We can always say that "our Bush works in mysterious ways. It's not for us to question his will. We must accept that there's a good reason and that we know too little to hope to understand and must, therefor, keep the faith." Of course that kind of thinking is a lot easier if you think that he is the vessel of God. Secondly, you write: "Assume that the Jihadists, after a long struggle, establish a Caliphate over the Mid East and South Asia. Imagine that countries such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Emirates, Yemen and Qatar are charter members. Imagine that Nigeria and Brunei are deeply sympathetic if not outright members. Now, imagine the repercussions, a few of which are: 1.- Reliable sources of oil do not exist; 2.- Pakistan provides nuclear weapons; 3.- Terror against the US and the West increases exponentially; 4.- Our economies tank, making the Great Depression look like a walk in the park; 5.- We are in a permanent war-footing with a huge amount of our resources devoted to military expenditures; 6.- Do I really need to go any further? With all due respect, that's so far out there that I suspect a science fiction writer would have to tone it down. Here's why I make that assertion: 1. You presume that we can soon be opposed by nations. The fact is that while there are 6 billion people in the world and we can't even find the few who are our most well known enemies, we can certainly find and destroy nations. Why do you think the oil producing nations have not brought their oil prices to true monopoly levels? 2. If reliable sources of oil do not exist, what do you think the oil producing nations are feeding their people with. Maybe liquid oil diets? The threat is not from jihadist nations, the threat is from jihadist terrorists. We are creating those terrorists and building their support by our actions. We will, in the end, learn as the Israelis have, that you do not rid the world of them by creating more reasons among more people for them to become terrorists. In order to alleviate the problem you must build a fence, eliminate the reasons that push normal people toward radicalism and undermine their support among common people. We've done... drum roll ... none of the above.