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 (197047)	8/12/2006 8:06:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You've got a long list of spin and nothing but spin, when you look at the facts terrorism is far worse than it ever was; the mid-east is as unstable as it's been in the last 30 years. Seemed pretty unstable to me when Saddam invaded Kuwait and then starting flinging SCUDS against Israel back in 1991. So unstable, that the US had to deploy some 500,000 troops to region to restore that "stablity" you claim so pervaded the region. We're clever, we're convincing the Muslim countries that they should help us have terrorism in their countries. Brilliant. No.. the terrorism was ALREADY persistent in the Middle East. But because we were turning a "blind eye" to the states perpetrated it, most of it was directed against Israel and other Arab states. All we did was make them have to focus upon defending their own "turf" and essentially expose the reality that are just as willing to kill muslims as they are westerners in order fulfill their goals of restoring the Caliphate. Before they were like passengers on a hi-jacked aircraft who felt they could just keep their mouths shut and not confront the militant forces in their midst, so long as they weren't on the "target list" of the hijackers. But now they are slowly coming to realize that they are now combatants against Islamo-Fascism, just like the passengers on Flight 93, just like the rest of Western "passengers". And if that's "cold and cruel", then so be it. It's not our culture that spawned the kind of ideology that sends children out to be suicide bombers, or human mine sweepers. And it's certainly no more cruel than permitting the so called "arab street" to remain indifferent, or even applaud, terrorist attacks against the west. If you can't stomach it, then just close your eyes and count to three and pretend this problem is just a "nightmare". As for "spin", the biggest LIE folks such as yourself are trying to purvey is that you have a better solution. One only has to see your reaction to Israel's defending itself and seeking to destroy/disarm Hizbullah as a PRIME EXAMPLE. Your solution is merely an immediate cease-fire that would solve NONE of the problems, and leave Hizbullah/Iran in a protected status until they are ready to destablize the region again. I happened to be watching O'Reilly the other night and he had a democratic strategist who, when asked what democrats propose doing to fight terrorism, was "we will locate the terrorists and go get them". Oh.. all well and good, until O'Reilly mentioned that such a strategy, if pursued, would mean that we'd have to invade Pakistan and other countries, thus widening the war. And guess what.. there are terrorists in Lebanon who have pepetrated numerous terrorist attacks against Americans and I don't see any democrats calling for "going after them" As for "trying something else", that's the nature of war, and fighting a cunning enemy on the basis of a "limited" war strategy that doesn't include invading everyone that is supporting terrorism. Whether you like him or not, Rumsfeld is right that the enemy changes strategies and we must adjust to the new reality and adjust our own tactics. But your strategy is still vacuous. You have no strategy other than rhetorically bashing this administration, as if that's going to accomplish anything. Hawk