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: Brumar89 who wrote (172283)	10/10/2005 7:49:13 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

1. The Anthrax incident is a terrorist attack with no resolution. Do you feel safer knowing that whoever it was tried it on a small scale (see original WTC bombing) and is still running around out there? 2. OBL did not support Saddam and vice versa. Saddam didn't want terrorists inside his country any more than the Saudis do. Saddam was a secular dictator. OBL is, if still alive which looks doubtful, very happy to see the fundamentalism in the new Iraq after Saddam. It may not be as severely rightwing as he would like but it's moving in his direction. 3. Afghanistan, according to the British military, is moving in the direction of narcostate civil war. Iraq is moving in the direction of more of the same chaos and possibly partition. No one, including the Bushies who were 100% WRONG about Iraq knows what will happen there except more misery and death. 4. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will do whatever is in their government's self interest. If that coincides with US interests then that's just happy circumstances. If it coincides with their people's self interest then that's just happy circumstances as well. Musharref has said publicly that he does not want his government to be responsible for catching OBL. 5. See, you acknolwedge that Libya was indeed in a very long negotiation. They wanted economic growth and oil companies back in town. The US couldn't take on another war front (not that this would dissuade Bush from doing so) and everyone in the world knows it. 6. I don't believe NK when they say diddly squat. That's a rightwing repressive dictatorship that starves its own people while maintaining a humongous army. It's a very bad precedent, as I've said before, on the nuke front. If they don't give up nukes, do you think we or Europe will go to war with them? 7. AQ Khan is living in his villa. He coulda shoulda been in prison. The Russian nuke problem started decades ago when the Soviet Union crumbled and chaos reigned. Kind of like Iraq except Iraq doesn't have WMDs and have never had any. "...But it is Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union that are the "Home Depot" of fissile material, in the words of one expert. The collapse of the Soviet Union threw its nuclear programs into a chaos from which they have yet to completely recover. And the Bush administration, in its first crack at drawing up a national-security budget, has slashed the funding of much of the non-proliferation effort. Bush's budget took $100 million out of the Department of Energy's side of the effort, alone....." csmonitor.com Actually OBL has said, in various translations, that we occupy Muslim lands and so we do. You may be right on this one, that he didn't mean it in just in the future tense but in the past and present as well.