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 of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3896)	1/5/2009 8:27:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I'm a student of history. History tells me that those Muslims are tribal and have been fighting for millenia. I'm not sure I'd be so proud of having spent all that money filling a library with the "Dummie's guide on _____". History should also tell you that every state in Europe began as a tribal/clan entity which was unified and bound together through religious unity of the Catholic church. The Jihadist movement, whether Shi'a or Salafi/Takfiri is inspired by the belief that Allah will eventually grant them victory and that anyone, non-muslim or muslim, who stands in their way is violating the "will of god". And even a cursory review of the literature of Sayyid Qutb (moslem brotherhood or Ihkwan, or the fiery hate filled speeches of Hizballah's Nasrallah (which would make Hitler look like a slack-jawed fggot, to borrow my favorite Jesse Ventura line.. ;0) display their incapacity for compromise and mutual respect. There is NO SUCH THING as a peace treaty between a Islamo-Fascist and "infidel", only Tadiah's of convenience between violent battles. Thus, the logic stands that if we don't seek them out first, they will seek us out on a battlefield OF THEIR CHOICE. One of the things you're pathetic sense of history has ignored is that to win a battle, YOU MUST CHOOSE YOUR OWN BATTLEFIELD AND TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY'S SANCTUARIES. And that's exactly what occurred in Iraq, whether or not we foresaw the level of Al Qaida activity that was generated. They came, they fought, they died, and ultimately they alienated and offended the very people they relied upon as a foundation for their Jihad. We have prevailed in Iraq and Al Qaida has been publicly humiliated by that defeat. We took the battle to their very backyard, they launched a "counter-invasion" hoping to fill the vacuum of power emptied by Saddam's downfall, and were chased out by the Anbar Sunnis. And btw, we did the VERY SAME THING to the Shi'ite Mahdi army of Muqtada Al Sadr, an Arab son of am esteemed Grand Ayatollah, and protoge of an Grand Ayatollah Haeri, who lives in Qom, Iran. It is not up to both the Shi'a and Sunnis to reconcile their differences, compromise on their mutual and parochial interests, and lay the foundation for economic growth based both upon their tremendous oil wealth, as well as their agricultural and industrial potential. That's up to them each reach that level of accord, not the US.. We can lead them to water, but they don't have to drink. But from what I can see, they are solidly in the US camp and likely to prove a STRONGER ally against Persian Iran than Saddam ever was. They are in Pakistan, and yet we're fighting in Iraq. Go figure. Instead, we need to get smarter.* Afghanistan/Pakistan is a FAR MORE DIFFICULT and delicate matter. For one, in Iraq we had relatively secure supply lines from Kuwait and Turkey, as well as Jordan. Iraq had a port facility as well to back up our supplies from Kuwait. On the other hand, Afghanistan requires us to transport supplies via very unstable countries (who like to charge us extortionary transit/landing fees), including Pakistan itself. This limits the number of "boots on the ground" we can sustain for a long period of time. We can stockpile during winter lulls in anticipation of a spring/summer campaign, but we have to be careful that we don't overextend ourselves and suddenly find a good portion of our army cut off from supplies by changing regional politics. step back and come up with a better solution than throwing all of our might against an intractable enemy. My friend, the intractable enemy is just as much a threat to moderate and progressive muslims (eg: secular Pakistanis) as it is for western "infidels". This is a civil war between moderates/progressives and reactionary forces within the muslim world and ultimately they need to fight and win it. But there's a role for the US to stiffen their spine, or in some cases, hold their feet to the fire, when it comes to dealing with the fanatical militants lurking within their borders. And when they fail to do so, then it becomes incumbent upon us to lead the effort to do it for them (eg: Lebanon). Hawk