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 (101626)	6/15/2003 8:17:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

No, we do have responsibility for all that. The blood is on our hands because of your moronic foreign policy. But to stay there will only draw more blood. Now maybe it's me.. but it appears that the above two statements are utterly contradictory. 1.) You acknowledge that the US has a responsibility to remain in Iraq in order to insure that stability is restoreed. 2.) You state that staying in Iraq will only draw more blood. So what is it Carl... Should we stay, or should we go? You have to us know... (asked to rhythmic beat of that song my question paraphrases.. :0) As for performing "sweeps", it all depends on where we're sweeping. Do you think the Kurds or Shiites give a rat's @ss about whether these sweeps create resentment? And do you think that this leader is trying to pacify his own support groups in trying to get the Americans to "tone it down"? Obviously he can't control his own kinsmen, or there wouldn't be a need for these sweeps. The Baathist party is illegal, and that's the way it will remain. Those who side with them will share their fate. That said, I think US troops, for the most part, seem to be carrying out these types of missions with professional courtesy. There are always exceptions and instances of unprofessional behavior, but that is not the norm. The question is how many people wind up echoing Pachachi's perspective, versus those who would like to feel safe once again. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (101626)	6/15/2003 10:52:13 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

Mr. Pachachi said that military sweeps through civilian areas with mass arrests, interrogations and gun battles, intended to suppress the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and military command, were inflaming sentiments against the American and British occupation. He predicted that if such sweeps continued, they would be "exploited by the Baathists," and he added, "It would be much better if we didn't have these operations." I recall predicting before the war, very specifically, that when American forces made the transition from attackers to occupiers, they would be vulnerable to harassment attacks. I also predicted, and still do, that such attacks, and terrorist operations aimed at US troops and, if they ever become active in Iraq, US civilians, will follow. The American response, so far, has been the response that occupying armies have always made: large-scale sweeps and massive search operations. These will have some success, but they won't do the job. We are coming up against a problem some of us anticipated: to stop these attacks we need investigators and detectives, people with local networks who can track terrorists down and unravel their networks. We can't do that, because we don't have reliable people. We have to use the blunt instrument, because it's all we have. What do we do if it doesn't work? I believe that the attacks will escalate, probably substantially, as the US election approaches, and that we'll also start seeing larger marches, rallies, etc. The people who want us out of there know the fastest way to accomplish that is to get us to do some regime change on ourselves. It wouldn't surprise me to see attacks elsewhere during that period, possibly in the US. We'll see.