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 (197097)	8/13/2006 12:57:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

And he had a real coalition in 1991. He really did have a "Mission Accomplished." Not some photo op on an aircraft carrier. Did we now? Another convenient lie. There were more nations participating in the overthrow of Saddam than there were involved in ousting him from Kuwait. And in both cases, the majority of the troops actively enaged in combat were US and British. In the respect, the only differnce now is that acts of terrorism have gone over 10,000 per year. [And they're undercounted by the Administration's own admission.] Again.. you avoid answering WHERE these terrorist acts are predominantly being committed. It makes a BIG difference if the majority of the attacks are ocurring in non-muslim countries and against non-muslim targets (the west), or within their own muslim societies. And I'd bet you that a large percentage of those terrorists attacks were committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel. We certainly know that terrorist attacks in Iraq are almost a daily occurence. And that's indicative of how vital a battlefield the terrorists consider Iraq to be. Lose Iraq to the concept of democractic political, and economic, reform and they suffer a critical lose of esteem and credibility. And as I mentioned to Sly (or was it Geode?), there are many countries that have historically had higher levels of violence than Iraq. Columbia had its period of "La Violencia", and it still has one of the highest murder rates in the world. But their government has been able to sustain some semblance of order. For the terrorists to win, they have to cause the downfall of the current government and replace it with one of their own. For the terrorists to win, they have to be able to cause political and economic fear (and/or appeasement) amongst their enemies (the west) by committing spectacular terrorist acts and forcing us to live in fear. For Iraqis (and us) to win, a government not receptive to being controlled or intimidated by militants must remain in place in Iraq, preferably a democratic and progressive one that provides, OVER TIME, an inspiration for other muslims living in oppressive societies (like Saudi Arabia). And for us to win against terrorist acts like 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, or the more recent attempts in London Heathrow, we must just accept that eventually they are going to succeed in carrying out a terrorist attack. We just will not be able to statiscally prevent every one of them. But we win when we refuse to live in fear, and become EVEN MORE determined to stamp out and confront these terrorist groups and the states that harbor and facilitate them. Terrorists are making a political statement that they hope will weaken our resolve (because they know we don't really like to be at war). And it demands a even more determined counter-response that displays our resolve not to be intimidated, and to inflict an even greater response against them. Then they will recognize that the "cost/benefit" of such attacks are not willing their war for them, especially when it is alienating them from the popular support of the mainstream muslim population. Hawk