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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (525)	3/30/2003 9:03:50 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7830

"Being right may be a Pyrrhic victory" Such a great way to put it. I've kept saying "Even if we win WHAT do we win?" The right to pour money into Iraq to "rebuild" it? The right to spend billions occupying it? The right to attempt to install a puppet that will last? The right to try to bring literacy up to a rate that will sustain democracy? (how many years will that take? 10 years? 20?) The right to creep away after the war and after declaring "victory" and leave Iraq a gaping hole and a reminder to the world of just what America is? Mr. X and I have talked about this for hours. And we can't figure out what a "win" looks like in this sad episode. We've decided that if it is possible for our government to withdraw and declare victory and save face, without trying to subdue Baghdad, that will probably be a "win". If we try to subdue Baghdad, I think there will be no win possible.

To: Lane3 who wrote (525)	3/30/2003 9:47:50 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7830

I don't see a difference between It means 3/4 of Americans back him in this matter. and Couldn't it just as easily mean that 3/4 of Americans support our troops? Or are you saying it doesn't matter as long as the "number," whatever it may mean, is high? As long as Bush has at least majority support for this war, it will continue. And probably past that. I posted an article the other day about that, about how all they're doing is annoying folks who are trying to go about their daily lives and not influencing the WH one bit. I wish they they would hold demonstrations in every American city this week that just destroys the morning rush hour traffic. The more they do that, the more opposition they will build to themselves. And part of that will translate to support for ending the war by ending Saddam. The protestors in San Francisco, amazingly, finally figured this out. They have changed their tactics to avoid massive disruptive effects. Or some of them have. Some of them intend to continue to try to destroy "the system". More power to them. This will blow in their faces in ways they won't believe. What article was that? Yeah, no aid but probably a little comfort. Not enough to make a difference in the war. IMO, that little bit of comfort in trivial compared with the principle of protesting government policies that one disapproves. Small price to pay for freedom. Somehow I think your answer would be different if you were in the way of bullet fired because the war was still on because Saddam was hoping the protestors here would destroy the resolve of the administration. Or get Congress to rescind authorization for the war. We're talking garbage collection schedules here. People die because of this. Do they still have a right to protest? Yes. Should they? Absolutely not. Let me point out they are also galvanizing the other side. Message 18772469 That is the first demonstration I have ever gone to. But it won't be the last. Incidentally, the 2 demonstrations started out separated, but the Support demo was getting all the honks from passing cars, so the peaceniks started intermingling to make it appear they were for them. Arguments and shouting matches broke out at that point. The cops then asked the Support people to disengage and move down the street, which we did. And pretty soon the antis mixed in again. At that point, the cops, fearing violence, ordered the antis to move back to their previous positions or be arrested. I'm not sure what charges they could have come up with, but the threat was enough. Probably they should appreciate what is being done. Just like the French should. Let's route the US Army through France on the way home. Two birds, one stone. Yes, but when all is said and done, will that really matter? Assuming the US stays in the UN (which will most likely be the case), it certainly ought to matter. It should illustrate to them a grievous and dangerous failure of their methods. Being right in this matter could be much more important than you think. And if the Arabs persist in their myths and fatally divide the UN, it will cease to useful in any case. So, are you proposing we occupy Iraq until that happens? No. We set up a new gov't and get it working. Then start withdrawing. And continue to provide aid to Iraq until it is back on its feet economically. Do you REALLY believe the Iraqis- -a majority, not Baath party members- -support and love Saddam? If so, why did Iraqi troops fire on Iraqis trying to make it to British lines? And there are persistent reports of what were referred to in WW1 as "combat police" to force Iraqi soldiers to fight. And reports of executions of Iraqi citizens for the least sign of wavering loyalty. Suppose Saddam actually is dead or is killed in the future? How long do you think his regime will last? At the least, there would likely be a civil war among Iraqi troops as their leaders scrambled for power. Oh, I see you've bought into the cakewalk propaganda. See above.