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 (101494)	6/13/2003 11:44:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Will that be working the same way that political and economic pressure worked to eliminate Castro in Cuba, after the fall of the Soviet Union? Eventually... especially since the Europeans seems to have come to their senses ever since Castro's crackdown on journalists and dissidents in Cuba. And let's face it, the US hasn't applied NEARLY the level of pressure that could be applied. And in part, because Castro hasn't really threaten US interests ever since Nicaragua. Castro knows that he's in a very vulnerable position now that his Soviet patron is now longer subsidizing his economy, or providing him protection. For Iraqi guerillas to mass in camps is stupid. This will be punished by the US, and I doubt that they'll continue to do it. Probably not.. But fighting in groups, especially when one is seeking martyrdom, seems to be a modus operandi for these people. Being an urban guerrilla, takes a certain amount of patience and sophistication which I don't believe they currently possess. And they have no real place to hide in the countryside that they can use as a safe-haven. The Kurds are in the mountains. The Shiites are in the south. And Tikrit and Falujah are fairly remote and containable. It will be tough to wage a guerilla war when there are few places to hide in the barren countryside. If it were only a matter of "body counts" we'd have won Vietnam, LOL. And the Russians would have won in Afghanistan. Only if those guerilla groups find powerful patrons to support, supply, and train them and the US fails to respond (as I believe we are in Iran by supporting demonstrations there). And as you might recall, the US provided training and support to the Afghanis who defeated the Soviets, returning "the favor" for Soviet support of N. Vietnam. Unlike what I perceive from your apparent support of despots, I don't think it's wrong to actively attempt to undermine and subvert non-elected regimes when they threaten our national interest. These governments have little legitimacy with their own people and normally sustain their power through repression and corruption. If they "play ball" with us, then that's fine.. I may not like their regimes, but I'm not particularly interested in losing US soldiers trying to change every despotic regime into a democratic love-fest. But when our national security is at risk, then I really don't have much problem "threatening" whatever non-democratic regime we need to, in order to obtain our objectives. And if we need to use our economic and political "influence" to obtain cooperation from democratic governments, then that's fine too. Let them choose what side their bread is buttered on and if it's worth no assisting us (or messing with us). Like I've said before, it takes 6 months to develop a reasonable resistance. I don't think that Iraq is an exception to this rule. So give them another four months and you will get an idea of what the "beginning" is like. Bilow, the US has permitted each Iraqi the ability to keep several AK-47s for self-protection. Why hasn't your scenario come to pass already? There will always be terrorism, just as there will always be crime and drunken drivers.. etc. But killing one person at a time isn't going to result in regime change. And as the US continues to restore Iraqi social institutions, it will be up to the Iraqi police and military to fight these insurgents. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (101494)	6/14/2003 10:07:56 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow, The totality of your posts make you sound like a cheerleader for armeggedon. It sounds like you can't wait for predicted iraqi resistance to firm so you can finally be right? Stop chomping at the bit. If you are right, it will be a disaster for the US. So fight the fight in trying to change policy and if the current policy is continued root for it to succeed--it is in your interest, no? This is really where the democrats will go wrong as well. There are reasons to be skeptical about bush/rummy/wolfy but if the opposition is seen by the public to over-politicize, they will appear(wrongly) to be unpatriotic. I am accusing nobody here so dont attack me on that level. Republicans were in similar situations at the outbreak of WW2(taft) and even in clinton admin when Serbia was opposed and quagmires were discussed. And of course the left in VN was accused of this by both LBJ dems and some Republicans too. I remember the peace marches well and how sick i was at time to march with the extreme left anti-americans back then. Mike