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: JohnM who wrote (86319)	3/25/2003 9:44:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Let's stow it and move on.<< Maybe you're right. Maybe she really is asking whether you would take a moral stand against anti-Semitism and refuse to march side by side with people who carry signs that say, "Hitler was right." Under the circumstances, is that unreasonable?

To: JohnM who wrote (86319)	3/25/2003 10:00:43 PM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 281500

"...the Bush administration's approach to changing the regime in Baghdad banked almost everything on a picture perfect response from the Iraqi people. " Talking Points Memo by Joshua Micah Marshall talkingpointsmemo.com (March 25th, 2003 -- 4:16 PM EST // link) Nothing seems as important right now as the possibility of a civilian uprising in Basra. If it plays like the hawks have long predicted it would, it would prove a major victory for the whole military endeavor. Here's the key, as I see it, to the current situation. Nothing that has happened is really that troubling from a purely military point of view. The US-UK forces have advanced to the edge of Baghdad in just a few days. This isn't really good or bad, really. As we've noted before, the story will be told when we fight for Baghdad itself. The problem isn't with the military strategy. It's rather that what we've seen so far on the military side of the equation has thrown into some doubt our political strategy. We can subdue Iraq militarily. That's really not a question. But if we have to subdue it in that sense our political strategy will be in a shambles. The strategy which the administration is following amounts to a grand politico-diplomatic carom shot. We can ignore the protests from around the world, they argue, because we assume that when we've finished with our plan the results will prove our diplomatic opponents wrong. In other words, if we get into Iraq and we find tons of WMD and the Iraqis are praising us to the stars for liberating them, then France and Germany and Russia will have egg on their face. It really won't matter how much they griped on the way in because we'll be retrospectively justified. And with a pro-American Iraqi civilian population we'll go about setting up a democratic polity which will be the envy of the Arab world. On the other hand, if we have something more like an angry and restive civilian population, then, from a political standpoint, we're really up the creek. We won't have happy Iraqis making our case for us to the world community. And it will be very hard for us to set up a democratic government while we're ruling the place with our fists. The real outcome will almost certainly fall between these two extremes. But the Bush administration's approach to changing the regime in Baghdad banked almost everything on a picture perfect response from the Iraqi people. This reminds of a phrase they repeat over and over again in the Army: "Hope is not a plan." -- Josh Marshall

To: JohnM who wrote (86319)	3/25/2003 10:19:42 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Too busy sneering again, Nadine. You, unfortunately, continue to think that having a conversation is a war. While you believe it is an evasive maneuver. You, of course, believe all that stuff. Too bad we can't come up with some more evil folk/causes to add to that list. Hmm, Pol Pot's not on the list. You must have forgotten him. Che Guevera also. Just slipped your mind. Etc. Well, silly me, I believe all that stuff about ANSWER because that right-wing nut, David Corn, writing in that right-wing rag, the LA Weekly, told me all about it back in November: laweekly.com As we discussed on this thread back then. I haven't found WWP's position on Pol Pot, but they're solidly for Kim Jong Il, Slobodon Milosevic and Fidel Castro (so I'm sure Che is a good guy too).