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: Hawkmoon who wrote (348114)	2/10/2010 12:23:28 AM
From: skinowski	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793866

Your criticism was spot on, so I didn't want to expand too much. In one statement after another, this guy betrays his naive assumptions. For example: Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella [against Iran] — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 Let's take on briefly a couple of silly baseless beliefs which are evident in this statement. For one, as you commented, many Arab nations may chose to develop their own nukes, rather than become totally dependent on the US for their security. Another one is his assertion that a softening of those Arab "autocratic" regimes would decrease the "discontent" of the religious extremists. In fact, the opposite is true - the militants consider their governments to be far too secular - and indeed their purpose is to replace them with new rulers, who would be stricter and "better" Muslims. Such a degree of ignorance coming from a person whose profession it is to study this subject for the Airforce is... disturbing.