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: Sajjad who wrote (87884)	3/30/2003 4:10:11 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As a stated policy, America wants to be the liberator. It's a difficult "sell" if your stated policy is something different.....Off war parallel....This Administration has a stated policy of promoting free trade. If you look over what we have actually done over the last two years...the anti-free trade list is a lot longer than the free trade list, e.g., steel tariffs hardly are not free trade initiatives. Allied forces role is very defined, for a short period of time. ... US forces do not intend to occupy the area for an indefinite period of time. I missed that one...How long is that short period of time? The Administration response to that question has been...We don't know, it's a short time....my comment on that is: if you don't know, then how could you possibly know it's a "short time"? Everyone wants it to be short, but what is short. You may recall that we can afford a "small deficit". Vague terms like small and short are ideal. Everyone wants them, even though we don't know what they specifically mean. Even if you believed that the occupation would be 3, 5, or 10 years would you actually say that? This is and has been the world of politics. You say what people want to hear. People will believe, you just need to know what they want to hear. jttmab

To: Sajjad who wrote (87884)	3/30/2003 10:16:28 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

> am sure that America has no intentions of becoming the occupier Of course not. That would bring about massive American casualties. > As a stated policy, America wants to be the liberator. As a stated policy America is also committed to expansion of democracy by restoring regimes like Kuwait and supporting others like Saudi and Egypt. What is your point? > We are part of a bigger coalition, that cannot be given a bad wrap unless something disastrous happens for the world to see. Well we'll try that but it won't fly. It would have been different if we were part of a UN or even NATO force. As it stands, we just said we're gonna to do this no matter what, who's gonna be with us and who's gonna be against us. So the PR above won't fly. > US forces do not intend to occupy the area for an indefinite period of time. Correction. US hopes not to be occupying for an indefinite period of time. Your crystal ball must be working differently than mine. Because last I checked the troops we sent to Saudi some 12 years ago are still there.

To: Sajjad who wrote (87884)	3/30/2003 11:00:26 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

US forces do not intend to occupy the area (Iraq) for an indefinite period of time. Let's see: We fought in the Philippines a century ago...we're still there. We fought in Cuba a century ago...we're still there. We fought in Puerto Rico a century ago...we're still there. We seized Guam from Spain a century ago...we're still there. We fought in Germany 60-some years ago...we're still there. We fought Japan 60-some years ago...we're still there. We fought in Korea 50-some years ago...we're still there. Jordan, Columbia, Turkey, Kosovo, Kuwait...still there. These are off the top of my head, probably more still out there.