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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (273123)	10/8/2008 3:32:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	14 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793975

[Saddam] was NOT interested in any Islamic rule of law. HE was the rule of law. mq, you are half right. Saddam was perfectly okay with Islamic rule of law, as long as it was still him. Did you miss hearing about the 50 grandiose mosques Saddam built, or the Koran he had written in his own blood, or his attempts to call himself caliph? Saddam tried to coopt the Islamic movement, and of course he was willing to make deals with Al Qaida, as they were with him. My enemy's enemy is my friend. Oldest rule in the book, which our CIA dodos think they are too smart to notice. Obama is right and McCain is wrong. Tell Pakistan what's required by way of getting Osama. If they can't or won't do it, then inform them what the USA will do. If Pakistan won't support a reasonable effort by the USA to get him, then a reasonable inference is that they support Osama, in which case appeasing them is irrelevant. So, you're now officially of the "talk loudly and telegraph your punches" school of foreign affairs? Isn't that exactly what State Department didn't like about Bush & Rumsfeld? Tell me, after you're done talking loudly and Pakistan says "FU" in return, what do you do? Invade Waziristan and force the President of Pakistan to send divisions in response? So now you're at open war with an unstable nuclear-powered state full of Islamist terrorists? And your next move is what?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (273123)	10/8/2008 5:43:35 PM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793975

C'mon, Maurice, we are nice people here... we do not engage in nuclear intimidation of foreign nations - leave alone nuclear powers - only because they decline to dispatch their military to do what we tell them to do. (Are you serious, or are you pulling my leg?... -g) We the West can't even control the sea pirates off the coast of Somalia - because killing them and bombing their bases would be too cruel. Things got so bad that even Vlad the Terrible sent a warship into the region - but nothing changed. Even Vlad - after all the flack he received over Ossetia (and with Oil prices hitting new lows) - prefers acting the part of a paper tiger. Anyway, for now the world is not ready to start exploding nuclear devices at varying altitudes in order to make a point. Give diplomacy a chance. And perhaps we the taxpayers (even after the bailout) could still spare some pocket change and hire some diplomats so they would train Candidate Obama to be a little more diplomatic and stop threatening and dissing nations. It's one thing when it's just a couple of guys like you and me having a friendly chat, and it's a totally different matter when a leading presidential contender acts like a horses arse and says crazy things in front of the whole world, no? Come on now Skinow, give up the idea of appeasement. You trendy liberal lefties.... I'll tell ya, with all the damage this bear market is doing to my Energy stocks (and stocks of energy?) I can truly appreciate this light moment. Being called a liberal lefty is a new one to me.... :)