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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (20965)	6/24/2003 10:53:53 PM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

A Sad Story According to an Iraqi witness, last week an American soldier at a propane tank got into an argument with an Iraqi woman, took her propane tank away from her and tossed it on the ground, and gave her a hard shove. An Iraqi man driving by saw this, stopped his car, got out and walked back to the two American soldiers there, shot them both with a pistol and then left in his car. He killed one and wounded the second. If the Iraqi witness is telling the truth, this was not a drive-by shooting, as the American military described it. Nor was it an organized attack by a supporter of Saddam Hussein. It appears to be just an Iraqi man who got ticked off when he saw an Iraqi woman being abused by a foreign soldier. This is both sad and revealing. It's sad because these young American soldiers are not trained to occupy a foreign country. Their morale is low. The temperature is hot. And we can well imagine a young American losing his temper when some lady is screaming at him in a foreign language. What he did should not have caused his death. On the other hand, it is revealing to understand that ordinary Iraqis are getting angry at the American occupation. A sense of honor is highly important in the Arab world, and this young man must have thought that he was honor-bound to avenge the affront of a fellow citizen and a woman by a foreigner. The American administration in Baghdad is trying to depict all attacks on Americans as the work of remnants of hard-core supporters of Saddam Hussein. The administration has begun to repeat the story, first floated by an Iraqi exile leader, that Saddam is offering a bounty for people to kill Americans. I doubt that is true. Some of the attacks are certainly by Saddam supporters, but we will be making a big mistake if we deny that our occupation by itself is provoking some of these attacks. The lot of an occupier is not an easy one. First of all, he is a foreigner who conquered the country. This will breed some resentment even among people who hated Saddam Hussein. Second, he is torn between the need for his own security and the need to win over the people. Third, practically everything the Iraqis are demanding is not in the power of the individual soldier to give them. A GI can't help it if the big shots in the palace headquarters are dragging their feet, but it's the GI, not the big shots, who is exposed to the Iraqi people. Every time our soldiers fire into a crowd, every time they kick down a door in the middle of the night and start jerking people around, they will breed bitter resentment. Some of our soldiers recently killed four young Iraqis who were just firing into the air to celebrate a wedding. It's a custom in that part of the world. T.E. Lawrence called them joy-shots. It's also a custom in that part of the world that every wrong must be avenged. But our soldiers aren't given courses in Arab culture, and they are trained to shoot first and ask questions later. Any man who intended to come home in one piece would have to adopt the same practice. And that's the tragedy of it all. The people on both sides are doing what they believe they have to do, and that is leading inexorably to a greater conflict. Several thoughtful Iraqis have warned us that the longer we stay, the greater the potential for trouble. That's no doubt true. The Bush administration did a poor job of planning for the end of the war. Unless we get lucky, we are very likely to lose the peace. reese.king-online.com

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (20965)	6/24/2003 11:48:42 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

OOps, I spoke too soon...the not very bright or informed populace of the US. Americans would back attack on Iran: poll 06/24/03: (ABC News Australia) Most Americans would back US military action against Iran to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons, but concern is growing over US troop casualties in Iraq, according to an opinion poll. The Washington Post/ABC (America) poll found 56 per cent of respondents endorsed the use of the US military to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons while 38 per cent opposed it. The United States has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, supporting "terrorist" organisations and of meddling in the affairs of neighboring Iraq, where US troops toppled the government of Saddam Hussein in April. The poll found growing concern over the number of casualties among US forces in Iraq. Since the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 46 US troops have been killed in hostile circumstances there. Since President George W Bush declared major combat over on May 1, the death toll stands at 19 killed in combat. About half of the 1,024 people surveyed said the current level of US forces killed was "acceptable", down from two-thirds with the same view in early April. Overall support for the war in Iraq was still strong but the Post said it might be ebbing slightly. Two in three people said they approved of the way President Bush was dealing with Iraq but this is down from 75 per cent in late April. About 64 per cent said the benefits of the war outweighed its cost, a drop from 70 per cent in a survey late April. The poll found seven in 10 people were concerned the United States would become involved in a long and costly peacekeeping mission in Iraq. In addition, about one in four respondents incorrectly believed Iraq had used chemical or biological weapons against US forces during the conflict. More than six in 10 people said the decision to go to war in Iraq was justified even if the United States did not find weapons of mass destruction, the reason cited by the Bush administration for going to war in the first place. The margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points for the poll and interviews were conducted June 18-22. © Copyright 2003 ABC News Australia