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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (163469)	3/9/2003 12:06:49 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574746

How is this man always so right on? At least he nearly always matches my opinion... -Z Fire, Ready, Aim By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN went to President Bush's White House news conference on Thursday to see how he was wrestling with the momentous issue of Iraq. One line he uttered captured all the things that are troubling me about his approach. It was when he said: "When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission." The first thing that bothered me was the phrase, "When it comes to our security . . ." Fact: The invasion of Iraq today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is easily deterrable if he did. This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice — a legitimate choice to preserve the credibility of the U.N., which Saddam has defied for 12 years, and to destroy his tyranny and replace it with a decent regime that could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world. That's the real case. The problem that Mr. Bush is having with the legitimate critics of this war stems from his consistent exaggeration on this point. When Mr. Bush takes a war of choice and turns it into a war of necessity, people naturally ask, "Hey, what's going on here? We're being hustled. The real reason must be his father, or oil, or some right-wing ideology." And that brings us to the second phrase: "We really don't need anybody's permission." Again, for a war of no choice against the 9/11 terrorists in Kabul, we didn't need anyone's permission. But for a war of choice in Iraq, we need the world's permission — because of what it would take to rebuild Iraq. Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq, not what it will take to rebuild a decent Iraq — a distant land, the size of California, divided like Yugoslavia. I believe we can help build a decent Iraq, but not alone. If we're alone, it will turn into a U.S. occupation and make us the target for everyone's frustration. And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint but a marathon. Mr. Bush growls that the world is demanding that America play "Captain, May I" when it comes to Iraq — and he's not going to ask anybody's permission. But with Iraq, the relevant question is not "Captain, May I?" It's "Captain, Can I?" — can I do it right without allies? No. So here's where we are. Regime change in Iraq is the right choice for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world. Mr. Bush is right about that. But for now, this choice may be just too hard to sell. If the president can't make his war of choice the world's war of choice right now, we need to reconsider our options and our tactics. Because if Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a decent Iraq, but something more important — America's efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world. A story. In 1945 King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia met President Franklin D. Roosevelt on a ship in the Suez Canal. Before agreeing to meet with Roosevelt, King Abdul Aziz, a Bedouin at heart, asked his advisers two questions about the U.S. president: "Tell me, does he believe in God and do they [the Americans] have any colonies?" The real question the Saudi king was asking was: how do these Americans use their vast power? Like the Europeans, in pursuit of colonies, self-interest and imperium, or on behalf of higher values? That's still the most important question for U.S. national security. The world does not want to be led by transparent cynics like the French foreign minister and his boss. But it also does not want to be led by an America whose Congress is so traumatized by 9/11 that it can't think straight and by a president ideologically committed to war in Iraq no matter what the costs, the support, or the prospects for a decent aftermath. But, France aside, the world is still ready to be led by an America that's a little more humble, a little better listener and a little more ready to say to its allies: how can we work this out? How much time do we need to give you to see if inspections can work for you to endorse the use of force if they don't? Think about F.D.R. He had just won World War II. America was at the apex of its power. It didn't need anyone's permission for anything. Yet, on his way home from Yalta, confined to a wheelchair, F.D.R. traveled to the Mideast to meet and show respect for the leaders of Ethiopia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Why? Because he knew he needed them not to win the war, but to win the peace.

To: steve harris who wrote (163469)	3/9/2003 3:20:14 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574746

Army Brothers Split Over Iraq War (March 6) - Travis and Taylor Burnham are both in the Army yet find themselves on opposite sides of a looming conflict with Iraq. Travis, 24, is stationed at Fort Drum, N.Y., where he applied for conscientious objector status in January. Taylor, 27, is a combat engineer in Kuwait waiting for a potential invasion of Iraq. ``I know how a mother might have felt in the Civil War having sons on both sides,'' said their mother, Judith ``J.P.'' Burnham, a social work professor at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tenn. ``I'm very divided. I support both of my sons,'' she said. She keeps a yellow ribbon on her office door for Taylor and a war protest sign on the wall for Travis. Travis describes himself as a pacifist. In high school, he was kidded about being not aggressive enough for sports. During basic training, he refused to chant ``kill'' with the other soldiers. More recently, he marched in anti-war protests and spoke openly about his objections. ``I'm opposed to taking the life of another human being,'' he said. ``I understand there are situations where we react to human instincts and in self-defense, but to aggressively and collectively destroy another human life, my conscience won't allow me to do it.'' His mother says older brother Taylor has reservations about the war, too, but understood when he enlisted that doing his duty might mean using violence. In joining the military, the two men followed the example set by their father, Jeff, and oldest brother, Preston. They enlisted in peacetime to earn money for college, gain discipline and see the world. Travis joined the Army in 1999 after he dropped out of college and ran out of money while traveling in Europe. He sought help from his father to return home. ``I told him I'd send him $300 if he'd join the Coast Guard,'' recalled the elder Burnham, an engineer and a member of the Coast Guard in the 1960s. ``I think it's a good thing for young men or young women to join the military, learn a skill, get some discipline and contribute to the country's safety.'' But the Coast Guard had a 22-month waiting list and Travis was impatient. He signed up for a five-year hitch with the Army and is now assigned to the 10th Mountain Division as a photojournalist. ``It was the Clinton administration, the economy was strong and war didn't seem to be on the horizon,'' Travis said. ``Not once did any of the recruiters I spoke with mention war, enemy, shooting or death.'' His older brother also joined the Army for direction. He attended college but was uninspired and drifting. He decided to enlist in 1998 and after a five-year stint plans to study environmental biology in Maine. Now assigned to the 814th Engineer Company at Fort Polk, La., Taylor has been in Kuwait since Valentine's Day. Security concerns have kept him from contacting his family since he left the United States. The Army is investigating his younger brother's conscientious objector application. The process involves 26 steps and usually takes at least 90 days. Travis has already been interviewed by a chaplain and a psychiatrist. The Army can refuse him, grant him a discharge or move him to a position where he would be unlikely to have to fire on an enemy - like the position he already has. ``We can't push him much farther back than being a public affairs guy,'' said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty of the 10th Mountain Division. ``He's a photojournalist. I don't know of any photojournalist in the history of the U.S. Army who has ever killed anybody.'' The Army has granted two voluntary discharges to conscientious objectors this fiscal year, according to its records. Last year, it granted 17, and the year before nine. The highest number in recent years was 59 in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War. As he waits for word, Travis worries about his brother. He met with Taylor in December at Fort Polk and told him how he felt about a war with Iraq and what he planned to do. There were no hard feelings. ``There was no, 'How can you do this to me?''' Travis said. ``He pretty well understood and he accepted it.'' 03/05/03 15:19 EST Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.