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: Bilow who wrote (88877)	4/1/2003 5:39:43 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 281500

First of all, the underlying assumption here is that Iraq is "winnable" as a war. Depends on what you consider winning the war to be. We have stated that we have two objectives. One, oust the Baath regime. Two, disarm Iraq. Those two things are perfectly achievable within a reasonable time frame. If you define winning the war as putting in place a government which is friendly to the US and acceptable to the Iraqi people, that's a different matter. But that's not a military goal but a civil one. The military goals are perfectly achievable. In my view, that's what constitutes winning a war. The other part is winning the peace, and that's not up to the military.

To: Bilow who wrote (88877)	4/1/2003 6:34:34 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> First of all, the underlying assumption here is that Iraq is "winnable" as a war. Actually, the war is winnable. War as an instrument of love, peace, and democracy is where the problem is. > Second, the objective of liberating a people that do not, on the whole, wish to be liberated, (at least by us), smells Good luck on that one. I couldn't even convince some that meddling in European politics against their wishes is not the right thing. And here you are talking about people whom are not considered as human. > Third, the concept that it would be "humiliating" to admit our mistake in Iraq is a travesty of everything that is best about the Christian religion that our leader espouses. Carl, have they won you over into believing they are good God fearing Christians? If you do, you should not even be here. A flight to Switzerland or at least a bunker in Montana would be best. > Fourth, it should now be evident to all that our war on terrorism is in severe danger of tumbling completely out of control. There you go losing faith in the government. What makes you think terrorism was a factor in the invasion Message 18778547 > It's been a disaster so far, and it doesn't look like it's getting any better. There you go losing faith in our great leaders. I'd say it is going exactly as planned. Sure it would have been better if this was 6-day war. But that is not a big obstacle. You should re-evaluate your premises. To some this is a failure of diplomacy. To others it is the triumph of antagonism. ST

To: Bilow who wrote (88877)	4/1/2003 6:45:31 PM
From: nixtox	Respond to of 281500

Carl, RE: Yes, this will mean the end of the political careers of Bush and Blair, but the fate of our countries is not the same as the fate of our leaders. We've already had many leaders that are listed in the history books as fools and petty criminals. Bush and Blair are already lost causes as far as the future's history books go. We need to dump them and worry about what matters; our countries. Welcome back, Nick

To: Bilow who wrote (88877)	4/2/2003 3:06:32 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Carl, I thought the article was an exercise in hand wringing. The war is going very well for the Coalition, so far. If the US and non-Baathist Iraqis are ruthless in the de-Baathification afterwards, then things will start looking pretty good for the Iraqis and pretty bad for their archaic enemies.