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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (222647)	3/6/2007 10:03:47 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

First of all, when you struggle against an ideology, this doesn't mean you go to war against everywhere at once. We struggled against Communism for 50 years, yet never declared war on the USSR. Of course you don't go to war with everyone at once, but if it were a struggle against totalitarianism, why not start with Kuwait (what are they, 1 million people who need to do what we say or become Iraqi whether they like it or not) first? We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, and re-installed a totalitarian regime in his place. Now you're going to claim we are fighting totalitarianism as an ideology? That's just plain wrong - you're arguing for what you think we should be fighting rather than what we are fighting. If fighting totalitarianism were all there were to it we would start in little Brunei. Who's going to stop us there? They've got maybe 200,000 people living under a dictator, and they've got a lot of oil. They're probably even Muslims to boot. That would make sense if we were interested in fighting totalitarianism as an ideology. But you know what? We could care less about their regime or their idealogy. When was the last time Brunei was in the US news? Second, in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the current governments are considered marginally better than having the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda take over. Wouldn't you agree? If the fight is against Islamic fundamentalism as a way of government, it makes loads more sense to attack Saudi Arabia than relatively secular Iraq. SA is the poster child for Islamism in government. I think you're twisting events around to fit the way you want them to rather than looking at events objectively. We certainly didn't invade Iraq to fight Islamic extremism. Saddam was a horrible thug who just happened to be a Muslim, not a horrible Muslim who happened to be in power.