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: Sam who wrote (183777)	3/19/2006 11:45:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not really certain that Osama's vision is to convert everyone to Islam, but let's suppose that it is--Saddam had nothing to do with that. Sam.. what color is the sky in your world pal?? Just because Bin Laden would prefer to kill ALL AMERICANS rather than having "mercy" upon us by giving us a chance to convert and be "Talibanized", shouldn't give hope of finding peace with the Islamo-Fascists. Usama, and his Tafirist/Salafist followers DO NOT BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY. So unless you share his belief, you're on his target list pal!! It might take him and his people some time and serious effort to get to you, but believe me, you're a dead man walking in his book. Does liberal ideology teach you that you can find "detente" with religious totalitarianism? Do you really believe that you can fend the wolves off by petting and trying to feed them? Come one now!!! As for Saddam, his ideology was just as totalitarian, albeit secular. He wanted to unite all Arabs under his leadership, by force if necessary. Which means he was willing to do anything to accomplish that goal, INCLUDING lending aid and comfort to Islamo-Fascists hoping to use Iraq as a springboard to attack the Saudi Royal family (and believe me, I have little love for the Saudis). I KNOW Saddam's intelligence agencies were involved in aiding, financing, and abetting terrorist attacks against the Saudis. I've seen the accounting documents for the purchase of the materials. Saddam deserved to be overthrown because he was thumbing his nose at the United Nations, as well as corrupting NUMEROUS members of that organization via the Oil For Food program. He was using his oil wealth to wage economic and political warfare on the United Nations in order to undermine it to the point where it would offer little resistance to his regime and cease attempting to sanction him for his violations of the cease-fire that he agreed to in order to prevent his overthrow by Coalition Forces in 1991. When you add the above to the other points you make in your post about stateless actors, then you get better reasons to NOT invade Iraq and depose Saddam than to get rid of him. Sam.. you don't permit a dictator who hates your democratic values to remain in power. Especially when he's committed the kind of atrocities that he did. IN FACT, JUST SUCH A PERSPECTIVE IS WHAT HE HOPED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO HOLD, BECAUSE IT MEANT YOU'D LEAVE HIM IN POWER RATHER THAN FACE THE DIFFICULT JOB OF TRYING TO CREATE A STABLE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT HIM!!! And you can't call providing 40 million people in both Afghanistan and Iraq the opportunity to realize a democratic government a "miserable failure". A miserable failure would be if those elections were not held, and we have to rely upon this belief that a brutal dictatorship is the only thing that can provide stability in Iraq. And I think that installing dictatorships was something that most of you liberals were absolute against. At least one would think so given your constant complaining about previous dictatorial regimes like Pinochet, The Shah, Somoza, or any multitude of others who were temporary actors in the histories of their country's path to democratic government. Would you support finding an appropriately brutal Iraqi dictator and then supporting and training in order to bring "stability" to Iraq? Or do you just want to leave 20 million people alone to claw at each other's throats? If you think the looting and crime that took place after we overthrew Saddam was bad... Just wait for what's going to happen if you follow Murtha's advice. Of course, you all can just change your minds, like Murtha did after he originally voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. You certainly don't have to take the blame... But then again, it's not your lives that are immediately on the line, now is it? Hawk