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: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7768)	12/15/2006 7:04:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

If that is true, how would you classify me if there were tanks and military vehicles from a foreign country rolling up and down my street and I took up arms against them? Just against foreign armies? You would be a member of a resistance force, or you might be called an irregular combatant. Against the forces American government (including one set up by foreign powers) you would be an insurgent, or revolutionary. Deliberately target and attack non-combatant civilians - Then your a terrorist.

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7768)	12/15/2006 7:54:17 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Facts tend to get my attention. And like I said in a previous post, who cares how they classify the war in iraq between the shi'a and the sunnis. What difference does that make? Then why the rush to classify Iraq as a civil war if it makes no difference? Sectarian violence.. terrorism.. gangsterism.. yes.. but full fledged civil war it is not.. yet. And it won't be so long as coalition forces remain in the country until the Iraqi army/police is professionalized sufficiently to perceive itself as the guardian of the country's security. But do you, somehow, believe the killing in Iraq will be less were coalition forces to depart? Do you REALLY believe that those "warlords" on both the Sunni and Shi'a sides would lay down their arms and start hugging one another? Dammit.. Iraq has the second largest, if not the largest, remaining oil reserves on this planet. Oil represents $$$$$ and people will kill one another in order to dominate that resource. Yet, all I hear from Liberals (and many Arabs) is that this war is about the US attempting to "steal" Iraqi oil. And that's just horsecrap!! They "power elite" on all sides of the Iraqi conflict hope to control that oil resource for their own power and wealth. All we care about is being able to purchase the oil in order to power our economy (as well as that of the world). And, of course, our oil services corporations would like to have the opportunity to further develop and explore for more oil. Should we leave, the violence will only grow more violent and bloody. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in future oil revenue, that's a tremendous incentive to the various warlords, and especially Al Qai'da. Al-Qai'da leadership fully understands the importance of oil. It's part of the master strategy to control it, and then force the western world to pay through the nose to gain access to it. And with that wealth, they hope to set up a Caliphate welfare state where they determine who receives the financial benefit of that natural resource. If you're not a Jihadist, don't hold your breath in expecting any windfall. jamestown.org The best chance for the Iraqi people, as a whole, receiving the greatest benefit from that tremendous resource, will be preventing some totalitarian faction from seizing it for their own purposes. As for the definition of a terrorist, Tim's response essentially stated my position on the matter. And these guys who are blowing up carbombs amidst innocent civilians are terrorists. Hawk