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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7745)	12/8/2006 9:28:02 AM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15993

Only difference between Iraq and Africa hotspots is the color of the people. Obviously, the liberals think that we should be helping the blacks in Africa and not the Arabs in the ME. How many liberals have gone into the ME? None, they would have been kidnapped and killed. All of the African violence is equally senseless. Look at the attacks in Nigeria against the oil industry. They are only out for their own good. OPEC is rapidly expanding from the ME to Africa, so is the influence of violent Islam. I think we should help whomever is most important. Iraq makes the most amount of sense to me. Why would we put ourselves at risk based on the geopolitical aspirations of George Clooney? Let him and Bono go to work by teaching these people not to kill each other.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7745)	12/9/2006 10:50:40 AM
From: DayTraderKidd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15993

The one big difference between iraq and darfur is our involvement in iraq. And our involvement in iraq is the only reason there is any civil war over there. If you think darfur and iraq a very simular as you say, then you are saying iraq is in a civil war? I don't pay any attention to the reconciliation in Serbia. My beliefs lay more in severe punishment for countries that do that shit in the first place. If you are goint to step into the middle of a war, do it in a way that reaches out to the aggressor and teaches them not to do that again. It took twice with germany and look what it took japan to learn. That never happened with Serbia so only time will tell if you can actually partially kick someone's ass and then just teach them to be civil, with civil techniques. So that should answer your question as to how darfur would be different from iraq. If a military force went in with the intention of making peace, or the military force was understaffed or showed up with the wrong plan, then I doubt it would be any different. A proper and overwhelming force can teach a population how to behave, even if it takes two times. I really don't know what to tell you about dividing countries along sectarian lines. Can they live in peace? We have some of that going on in our own country. Not sure how well it works here either. Maybe they never learn to live with each other and maybe it always comes down to how much pain a population can take when they become the aggressor, if the pain is even issued. I would think any country that opens there borders to minorities, to have them assimulate. We see in serbia what happens when they don't do that. We are starting to see problems in our own country from having an open border without a program to assimulate. And I bet we will see much of Europe struggle with the problem for the rest of our lives. And they are loaded to the gills with muslims with many of them hating the very country they live in. I'm not a big believer and a lot of the things I see going on around the world. What it comes down to for me as far as war is concerned, if you go in, mean it. That is another difference between iraq and darfur, were in iraq and not in darfur and when we went into iraq, it was not and still isn't a force strong enough to win a military victory.