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: jttmab who wrote (189517)	6/16/2006 10:25:00 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If the Saudies ever become our "enemy", US will develop a bleeding heart for the plight of the Shia in Saudi, who are treated under sub-human conditions, to say nothing of their human rights being violated...after all, the Saudi oil resides in Shia lands...but as it stands, most people do not even know Saudi has Shia or that they are abused. Human rights violations in Iran are terrible; human rights violations in Saudi Arabia aren't so bad. Well maybe the Saudis do public beheadings, cut off hands and feet as punishment and do more than their fair share of human trafficking, but they are our friends and friends are loyal to each other regardless of what they do. Give that Saudi a kiss. Besides, if the Saudis do become our "official" enemies we can tell the people about the beheadings, so the fact may come in handy one day. But for the time being the toughest we'll get with the Saudis is to have Condi do a flyover and complain that women should be able to drive. [Which might be the one good idea the Saudis have. :o)]

To: jttmab who wrote (189517)	6/16/2006 10:58:05 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You betcha. We were warning the FAA for years about the threat of the fanatics and specifically flying airplanes into buildings. Granted, the fix to protecting aircraft cockpits would have been rather low-tech and efficient. But don't give yourself a case of "round shoulder" patting yourself on the back about having been cognizant of the threat (when did you start warning the FAA.. 70's, 80's, 90's??) I can name all kinds of threats that haven't been mitigated by anti-terrorist hardening. Bridges, Dams, Malls, Shipping.. etc, etc, etc. But that doesn't mean that I'm psychic, nor some kind of "super analyst" if someday an attack is carried out against one of those targets. It just means that our intelligence (especially human) was insufficient to provide forewarning of such an imminent attack. That's the beauty of saying ... we'll tough it out; we'll win the war on terror; we'll win the war in Iraq. And the alternative IS?? How about "let's surrender".. Let's "make a deal". Let's "whistle past the graveyard".. When's the last time you saw Congress set up some committee to pay survivors of drive-by shootings in SE DC? Great point. Which is why I refused to donate to the Twin Towers fund. Show me a family in need and I'll work with organized charitable organizations to provide relief. But I'm not going to set up a two billion dollar fund for some money manager tasked with investing the money and overseeing it, to profit. I'm not sure that our government is accountable. In theory it may be, but not in practice. Well, you can always move to Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, or Iran and seek an even more accountable government... I mean.. geezus.. what do you want? Government, by its very nature, is a powerful institution permeated with ambitious (and often corrupt) individuals with a plethora of agenda, political and personal. That's the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ANY GOVERNMENT!! But in our government, you have the right to vote ever 4 years for a new administration, and every two years for a new congressional representative. If you lose, then you can sit back and stew while the elected official is held accountable to the majority that elected them. IMO, the reason that the country is divided over issues of foreign policy, among other things, is because our Government fosters the division by never admitting the whole truth. Ah, I see.. you need everything put in a nice pretty historical package, tied with a logical bow. But truth as you see it often is not truth as I see it, and vice versa. Where you ask if the bombing of Cambodia was legal, I ask why the world tolerated the occupation of large expanses of Cambodia and Laos by N. Vietnamese forces? While you ask whether our involvement in Vietnam was a mistake, but I've never seen you ask the same question about Korea. Some claim that Vietnam was a "civil war" that we had no business getting in the middle of, but how was that war fundamentally any different that Kim Il Sung's invasion of S. Korea?? Wasn't that a "civil war" too?? How about the terrorist organizations that want to overthrow the Iranian government? Not such bad terrorists; we'll give them safe harbor in Iraq. Of course, that's different. And while I'm not particularly enthused about MEK, isn't it militarily and strategicly pragmatic to use the same methods that are being used against us, if this is what is required to thwart (or confront) the enemy's use of these tactics? Again.. I return you to the policy of Mutally Assured Destruction.. We built, maintained, and threatened to use, weapons which most of us inherently believed immoral in their destructive power and visage of terror against mass populations in the cities we targeted. Logically speaking, if the enemy chooses terror as a weapon against us, then does it not make sense to threaten a similar use of terror against them? That's a very morally controversial question, I'll grant. Human rights violations in Iran are terrible; human rights violations in Saudi Arabia aren't so bad. Well maybe the Saudis do public beheadings, cut off hands and feet as punishment and do more than their fair share of human trafficking, but they are our friends and friends are loyal to each other regardless of what they do. Give them a kiss, if you so desire. But I personally find the Saudi regime just as distasteful as Iran's. The primary difference is that we no longer seeing the Saudi's threatening to wipe other countries off the map, or massing hundreds of thousands of children to be sacrificed as martyrs in suicide attacks. And it's our obligation to "encourage" (with some emphasis and arm-twisting) reform of their regime to a constitutional monarchy. Hawk