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: KonKilo who wrote (102776)	6/25/2003 1:01:55 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

SC, Truth is that hyped WMD isnt what made us go when we did, it was the calender. And if there were no calender issues, even if we had delayed for more inspections the results of the war were likely to have been the same--victory and then hitting the ground limping with pacification. Like Hawk, i am disappointed and buy into friedmans logic today. But i would like you guys to admit that although the wmd issue may have been hyped to justify the military action, it in no way changes the fact that every nation and the UN believe saddam had those weapons. And thats the disturbing questions is not whether they existed but what happened to them. I am noticing positions moving closer on Israel/pal issues and beginning to see some dialogue between pro and anti war folks here and thats a good thing. Mike

To: KonKilo who wrote (102776)	6/25/2003 3:21:45 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you understand better now why so many of us opposed the "rush to war"? Rush to war???!!! Bush sought, and obtained from Congress, an authorization to use force in October(?), 2002. The war did not begin until March. What I better understand is that military folks have never really been good at civil affairs. I had my own personal experiences in this while providing liaison during my stint in the military. Often times the military folks have all the subtlety of a 2x4.. They get geared up for all-out combat, win, and suddenly find themselves performing police duty... And this hasn't been the first time.. WWI.. WWII... reshaping the economies of Korea and Vietnam.. etc.. In all of those wars, soldiers have been required to stand down from combat operations and perform security and policing functions. But what I really find upsetting is literally the "begging step-child", do it on a shoestring, nature of the post-war effort. When we have to hunt down Baathist money in order to pay these folks a measly $20/month stipend, that indicates lack of prior planning. And it's going to prove embarrassing to Bush, which means Rummy should be getting ready for some well-deserved criticism. We never ruled out military action, but we wanted a more comprehensive approach and a better post-war plan. BLLSHT!! The plan worked FINE, given the limitations caused by Turkey's extortion, and we performed a major logistical and strategic feat. While I contest some of the force structure (we needed more Cavalry and MP support to conduct security and screening operations on the supply lines), overall, the plan worked very well.. ESPECIALLY IN THE CITIES which even I thought we would bypass. No.. my problem is that we didn't come in there with the necessary resources to reinvigorate Iraq's internal economy until oil revenues could kick in. Hawk