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: Hawkmoon who wrote (101341)	6/12/2003 8:38:30 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

" The folly that we needed UN approval to exact regime change is absolutely wrong. The UN should NOT get in the business of deciding what regimes should be changed or not. " And absent the UN,who E-X-A-C-T-l-Y do you believe has the " RIGHT " to exact " regime change ",and by what measure is " regime change " to be deemed necessary? Thanks, KC

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (101341)	6/13/2003 4:59:29 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Violate a cease fire agreement and it equates to a recommencment of hostilities." Go ahead and retreat to this line, but your problem is that this is not what Bush was saying back in February when he justified the attack on Iraq with the immediate danger of WMDs that he not only had proof of the existence of, but also knew where they were, and that the Iraqi commanders had been given orders to use them at their own discretion. I'm sorry, but redefining the reasons for fighting the Iraqis isn't going to save Bush. The guy is doomed. I mean take a look at the fighting going on now in Iraq. Every newspaper in the country is calling this something like "the largest military engagement since President Moron declared that the major fighting was over". -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (101341)	6/13/2003 5:11:29 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Vietnam was lost because the will to win was not there, and neither were the strategies authorized that would have won the war. When you permit your enemy to violate the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia, using them as sanctuaries and supplies zones, but are unwilling to do so yourself in pursuing them, you've set yourself up for defeat." This is just more loser rhetoric. Already you see that there is no will in this country to pursue suppliers of foreign weapons in Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Think about it a bit more carefully. *Rumsfeld just announced that we're killing fighters from outside Iraq, mostly from Jordan or Syria. But are we invading Jordan or Syria? Hell no.* What does that do to your theory about the differences between Vietnam and Iraq? Re: "This is what DOD leadership means when they say "no more Vietnams".. NO more political "rules of engagement" and having targets selected by the White House. The way you win a war is the political leadership setting out the mission parameters.. Telling them what the military can, and cannot do, and letting the generals do the rest." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It's quite hilarious that you could be giving a lecture on this subject after the White House forced this stupid war onto the military. Hell, the White House wanted a war with just 25,000 guys, now military men are being fired for suggesting that 150,000 isn't enough. Rumsfeld Vs. The Generals ? CBSNews, April 1, 2003 ... The latest comes from investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who wrote an article in this week's New Yorker magazine suggesting *Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners to add more troops to the war effort.* ... Hersh claims that Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly overruled the senior Pentagon planners on the Joint Staff, the operating arm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “And six times, I write. They went specifically on six specific occasions, they went to Rumsfeld, gave him the plan that had been approved all the way up, top to bottom of the military chain of command, and Rummy sent it back. He said too many forces. He asked for what they call inside a redo,” Hersh explained. ... Hersh describes how, in the months leading up to the war, a split developed inside the military, with planners and their bosses warning that the war plan was thin on troops and materiel, and the top generals - including Tommy Franks and Richard Myers - supporting Rumsfeld. After Turkey denied the US permission to land the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey, Franks initially argued that the war ought to be delayed until the troops could be brought in by another route but was overruled, Hersh writes. The article also notes Rumsfeld’s faith in precision bombing. Hersh quotes one planner as saying Rumsfeld had two goals: "to demonstrate the efficacy of precision bombing and to do the war on the cheap." Rumsfeld and his two main deputies for war planning, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, "were so enamored of 'shock and awe' that victory seemed assured", the planner said. ... cbsnews.com -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (101341)	6/13/2003 9:34:16 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Vietnam was lost because the will to win was not there This claim represents an extraordinarily common error, which arises when people view the war in exclusively military terms. The war was lost because its fundamental objective - the establishment of an independent non-Communist South Vietnam that could survive without our constant assistance - could not be achieved. The governments we supported in South Vietnam were corrupt beyond belief, totally devoid of popular support, and completely dependent on continued support from the US. Even if we had nuked North Vietnam, none of the governments we worked with in South Vietnam would have lasted very long after our withdrawal. Wars are fought to achieve political objectives. If the selected political objective cannot be achieved, you will lose the war no matter how many battles you win.