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: Michael Watkins who wrote (152848)	11/29/2004 3:25:30 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So now you make excuses and appologies for terrorists? The fact that Iran turns a blind eye to such activities only shows they condone and encourage such behavior. Samadi claimed 30,000 volunteers have signed up, and 20,000 of them have been chosen for training. Volunteers had already carried out suicide operations against military targets inside Israel, he said. But he said discussing attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq "will cause problems for the country's foreign policy. It will have grave consequences for our country and our group. It's confidential." I agree attacks on trade are not one sided. Thank goodness America knows how to deal with unprincipled nations who hide behind the WTO and agreements like NAFTA. The US uses the WTO, NAFTA and other trade agreements to attack everyone else too. Its not one-sided. One historically effective policy method has been to use tariffs against specific industries and their products on a country by country basis. While trade issues are discussions are dragged out and rulings appealed again and again, the targeted foreign industry player(s) often end up going out of business or end up in bankruptcy. This has allowed American owned business to move in and buy those productive foreign assets from bankruptcy at 5 to 10 cents on the dollar. Once the assets are under American ownership, tariffs can then be lifted. This is just one of many effective strategies that continue to help keep America strong and its people free. I should remind you that Vice President Cheney, as CEO of Haliburton, was lobbying Clinton so that he could do deals with Iran. You can't do deals with terrorists. Clinton understood this and so does Bush. You can only do favorable deals with pro American governments.

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (152848)	11/29/2004 4:00:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You don't see the extremist groups rallying to fight China, or Japan, do you? No, of course not. China doesn't have its army sitting on Iran's borders and is willing to invest in the country. Apart from the fact that whatever happens in China is not very well publicized, it's much, much more complex than that. Xinjiang has a troublesome Muslim population which will prevent the construction of any pipeline from Iran. Simply cannot be done as it would take enormous military resources to guard it. China fights Muslim terrorism in its Western provinces ruthlessly. This is likely to result in conflict between godless, atheistic China and Iran. What form the conflict will take, who knows. But we do know one thing: Iran generally does not act directly. Its MO is to use surrogates like Hizbollah and Hamas. Recruiting suicide bombers--then washing its hands of them--is typical. Japan is not attacked because it is a homogenous society; any Islamics within Japan would stick out like a sore thumb. In any event, the Japanese don't fool around. Not only does Japan deal harshly with any signs of terror, it has a rational immigration policy. observer.guardian.co.uk But if you wish to think that a pro forma renunciation of terror/suicide on the part of the Iranian Foreign Ministry means that Iran is presto! not a terrorist state, who am I to argue with such a fantasy? The Karin never sailed. The hostages were never taken. The embassy never seized. a) extremist groups are trying to consolidate their power within Iran b) we are helping the extremist groups by our own actions Now, this is completely laughable. The extremists have been in charge since Khomeini took over several decades ago. They don't need to consolidate their power; they've got it, they're holding it, and they're not sharing it. They have ruthlessly reversed any reformist tendencies. If you think that the extremists' theft of the recent elections was a response to what we were doing in Iraq, I suggest you take another deep, deep toke. Not ony were the "reformers/moderates" not particularly well-disposed to the US under any circumstances, the Mad Mullahs didn't like the result, or what happened in 2000 when genuine "moderates" [to the extent the term "moderate" can be used without irony in Iran] were elected [and in '01, when the reformers and "moderates" won again], so they fixed the deal for good in '04. cnn.com inq7.net If you really want me to fall out of my chair, tell me we are responsible for the theft of the '04 elections by the ultra-conservatives. You seem to have a genuine talent for suggesting that we are responsible for all kinds of things in this world, you might as well run true to course.