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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714353)	11/21/2005 5:53:39 AM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Ah,...he invaded Kuwait... And lastly, removing Saddam was a blunder. He was a local bully; he tried to bully Kuwait,

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714353)	11/21/2005 10:59:33 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

We need to have Israel fend for themselves. Just what do you think that Israel has been doing since 1949? Most of the time, it's all the US can do to keep the Israeli in check.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714353)	11/21/2005 11:09:21 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The US can also establish a bridge with Syria through schemes such as massive scholarships to Syrian youths to come to the US for higher education etc. etc. I don't agree with this specific plan but, education is the key. With this plan you have Syrian youths already indoctrinated and programmed to use our own educational system in order to support what ever they've been programmed to through lower Syrian schools. No, Fundamentalist training is started at the lowest level not the highest and that's where it must be stopped.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714353)	11/21/2005 12:04:48 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

During the Cold War the mind set of the US was to focus on the USSR. That now needs to change in order to combat the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Towards the achievement of that goal, the US should not seek bases in Arab lands as they did during the Cold War. Instead they should pull out and train the Arab armies through joint US-Saudi, US-Egypt military exercises. Encourage Pakistan to do the same with their Arab neighbors. In the cold war we had the somewhat dubious policy of supporting any petty dictator/king/tyrant or whatever as long as they were anti-communist. With the logic of the argument you're using I can see that we'd end up doing more of the same. That's not acceptable..... I'd put it to you that since the cold war ended the US has had to combat these very regimes that we previously had propped up in our fight against communism.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (714353)	11/21/2005 12:35:02 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

And lastly, removing Saddam was a blunder. He was a local bully; he tried to bully Kuwait, he reigned in Iran, he provided the regional stability. He became that way because he misread the encouragement that the US provided him in the 70s and 80s. Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton timed him out and sent him to the corner of the room. Bush Jr. should have kept it that way and slowly brought him back to our fold. But he was removed forcibly and now the US has to dig in there because of fear of instability. IMO here, you're completely missing an important historical fact that's been proven over and over again. Dictators/theocrats/kings care little for benevolent rule. They're main concern is directed at anything that threatens their own rule. This was brought to the forefront with Saddam only because he was so crude and unbalanced to flaunt this approach to the entire world. The Iraqi/Iranian conflict wasn't about reigning in Iran in order to stabilize the region. It was about Saddam feeling threatened by the Iranian Shia, no more, no less. He had to go to war in order to stay in power....an that was his only concern.