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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Slemmer who wrote (401787)	5/2/2003 3:00:06 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Rick, Re: From what I've seen, there are a lot more Iraqis happy to see us there than not. My reading, ranging from the NY Times, LA Times, Guardian UK, London Review of Books, The Nation, Chicago Tribune, and numerous other sources all indicate that there is a basic distrust of the American presence on the ground in Iraq. What sources are you relying on for your view that Iraqis are "happy" with our occupation? I only see such views in the U.S. corporate media which has been roundly chastised by most honest observers as engaging far too much in cheerleading for the military and the Bush team. Re: If you see this as an "imposed occupation," I hope you apply the same metric to troops remaining behind after conflicts under previous administrations: Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. We are no longer in Somalia. W/R/T Bosnia and Kosovo, the Clinton Administration rapidly moved from the air campaigns to UN policing. The US presence in Iraq is of a completely different nature, with the Bush neo-cons arrogantly suggesting that in our triumph, the U.S. will offer no meaningful role to the international community as represented by the UN. IMO, you are attempting to compare apples to oranges, so to speak. Re: How long did US troops remain in an "imposed occupation" after the guns were silent? I don't recall the exact time frames. Sorry. ****** Re: And would your answer be different if someone other than Mr Bush was in the White House? The neo-cons who demanded this invasion and occupation of Iraq are a political breed who have never before been given such a free rein in U.S. imperial policy. Of course things would be different with any other conceivable Administration. The present policy is extraordinary in American history. Both hubristic and imperialistic. Completely unprecedented, and in my opinion, completely un-American. The present policy violates all our shared virtues of avoiding foreign entanglements, acting only in defense and caring for the citizens of the nation rather than lining the pockets of the corporate cronies of a craven and corrupt administration. The Bushies are anti-American and unpatriotic.