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: SARMAN who wrote (202326)	9/10/2006 2:30:23 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are absolutely correct, the US gave a Sh1t and financed AQ and OBL to fight the Soviets. We did? Neither Bin Ladin, nor the Arab contingent of the Mujahidin, did much fighting against the Soviets. As I recall, OBL predominantly funneled money and logistical support via his group, the MAK, to the Mujahidin fighters. I also recall that he offered the benefits of his experience in construction to build bunkers and roads in the region. Neither you, nor I, have any proof that US funds were being funneled via Bin Ladin's group, although it's pretty certain that Saudi intelligence was doing so. Furthermore, the US was PROHIBITED BY THE PAKISTANI ISI from having direct operational or financial ties to individual mujahidin groups. THEY RAN THE "SHOW", not the US (although we did try and circumvent ISI control. And Al Qai'da, as it currently exists, did not truly come into existence until early '90s, and OBL's real "raison d'etre" was defined by the Saudi's granting permission for Coalition forces to be stationed in the Kingdom. So get your facts straight.. The Mujahidin was primarily a creation of the Pakistanis. We just provide the ISI with $$$$ and weapons and they did almost all the training). I did offer an alternative, however, you can not impose western democracy on the Muslim world. I guess I missed any "alternative" that didn't include the genocide of the Jews, and support for Islamo-Fascist regimes. And just how do you define "western democracy"? There are considerable variations depending upon which country you're referring to. Look how Lebanon democracy is. It still needs some tweaking but it is there. It could be adopted and modified to suit. BUT YOU CAN NOT IMPOSE WESTERN DEMOCRACY, it will not work. What's the difference between Lebanon's form of goverment and that of what we're assisting the Iraqi's to develop? They are BOTH "Confessional" forms of democracy and do not resemble any forme of Western model of democracy that I'm aware of. Thus, we're not "imposing" anything. We're only providing guidance, support, and security that enable the Iraqi people to determine the best form of democracy that will work for them at this time.. And the beautiful thing about democracy is that if the people want it to change, it can be changed. Hell, my only vision is accountable government, free press, and some kind of rule of law that prevents the religious intolerance from becoming militant and violent. How they evolve their democracy after that, and how long it ultimately takes to reach the CURRENT stage of Western Democracy doesn't matter to me. All I care about is that the process starts and is not defeated by an Islamo-Fascist alternative. Hawk