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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15841)	3/28/2003 4:31:54 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

I bet posting crap like that makes you all warm & fuzzy inside. That article gives you hope! Let the casualties mount! More! More! More! That's what you've been hoping for all along. It's so much harder blasting the Bush Administration with casualties so low & the campaign moving along so well. What I don't understand is why would you think I was interested in political propaganda about a media hyped event? I know what most senior officials said from the beginning, then reiterated almost daily to mass media from the start. It simply doesn't jive with the media hype & your left wing propaganda. No doubt Franks, Rumsfield & the like are growing weary of politically motivated & media hyped expectations. Bullshit gets old when faced with it 24/7. I can see that folks like you are encouraged by the massive push to mold perception regardless of the facts. You & those who think like you are doing a great dis-service for personal & political gain. IMO, under these circumstances, that is really sick. And yes, you are draining valuable resources that could be used to manage the war better. While that you folks spend all that time & effort, our troops are fighting & dying so you can be free to abuse your right to freely speak all of that bullshit. What a genuine shame. Talk about unworthy.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15841)	3/28/2003 4:41:55 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

On balance, the first week of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has gone very well for the U.S. and its allies — they've pushed armored infantry units to within striking distance of Baghdad, and done so without suffering significant casualties or experiencing a significant counter-attack...... .....Administration officials tamped down expectations of a speedy victory, saying those were never realistic — but public perception of a quick-and-easy war may have been shaped by months of public predictions from by the war's most enthusiastic advocates that if dealt a few determined blows, Saddam's regime would quickly collapse under the weight of its own tyranny. time.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15841)	3/28/2003 4:44:21 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

Hey Scott, I got this info from experts, not propagandists. Battle of Baghdad is Very Near The Pentagon insisted again that it is sticking to its war plan in Iraq, and that it is still on schedule, despite sandstorms and Iraqi resistance. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reiterated, "There isn't going to be a cease-fire." The fighting will end, he said, "at the point where that regime does not exist and a new regime is ready to go in its place." volunteertv.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (15841)	3/28/2003 4:51:16 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

A coalition of weakness By Erik Leaver and Sara Johnson (Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) As US officials look for political cover after losing the drive for a second United Nations Security Council resolution, the recently renamed "Coalition to Disarm Iraq" is the George W Bush administration's only opportunity to salvage a semblance of international legitimacy for war. A closer look at the countries involved reveals that claims to multilateral action in the name of democracy are grossly exaggerated. In reality, the United States is isolated internationally, and a few of the countries signing on to "liberate" Iraq have human-rights records that rival Saddam Hussein's. On March 18, the US State Department released a list of 30 countries willing to be named as part of the coalition, while President Bush raised the count to 35 in his speech on March 19 and this list was raised to 45 by March 21. While the list keeps growing in number, it has not increased the fighting strength of the coalition - only two countries have committed forces in any number: Britain (40,000) and Australia (2,000). The Czech Republic and Bulgaria have sent chemical and biological defense units of about 150 personnel each. Poland and Romania also have sent a handful of troops. Furthermore, the coalition has not added any diplomatic strength to the mission. These 45 countries make up less than 20 percent of the world's population and do not make up the moral equivalent of the United Nations. Despite joining the coalition, the level of support for the US in many of these countries is extremely weak - in only two countries in the world, the US and Israel, is popular support greater than 50 percent. Support is no greater in the global multilateral institutions. Only three members of the United Nations Security Council and slightly more than one-half of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization members support the US mission. Finally, the coalition brings little economic strength to the effort. The first Gulf War cost roughly US$60 billion of which the coalition members paid almost the entire costs of the war. No nation to date has offered any sort of economic assistance to the US to pay for the escalating costs estimated between $100 billion and $200 billion. It is also unclear how one becomes a member of the coalition. Some countries were apparently drafted. According to the Washington Post, officials of at least one of these countries, Colombia, were apparently unaware that they had been designated as a coalition partner. It is not known how many other governments first learned of their membership in the coalition through the media. Other support is lukewarm at best. For example, a spokesman for the Eritrean Foreign Ministry said to Agence France-Presse, "We are not having any kind of involvement." The lack of democratic credentials in the coalition is also startling. Human rights, democracy, and corruption ratings by Freedom House, Transparency International, and the US State Department illustrate the disconnect between pro-democracy rhetoric and the undemocratic reality of some of the coalition partners. Seventeen of the countries were measured to have "not free" or "partially free" democracies; 24 were found to have significant levels of corruption; and the US State Department concluded that in nine nations, "The overall human-rights situation remained extremely poor." Before the American public starts applauding the administration's newfound commitment to assembling an international coalition to attack Iraq, it should put the partners' participation in perspective. The coalition that Bush claims has more relevance than the UN is not a large group of democratic allies providing substantial military support and backed by public opinion at home. To the contrary, the assembled coalition is evidence of the international community's opposition to war and the administration's lack of commitment to democracy and human rights. atimes.com