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 (103431)	6/29/2003 3:32:02 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<The longer we keep this a strictly "US show", the more of a target we makes ourselves as being an colonizer, not a enabler.> A year from now, you are going to be saying exactly what Bilow is saying today. You will feel betrayed, and you will be very angry. It might take 2 or 3 years. But it's inevitable. This Administration is run by Control Freaks. They will not allow the tiniest bit of power to slip from their grasp, even in trivial things, even if it furthers their own longterm goals; they will not delegate, they will not compromise. Any Egyptian or Pakistani soldiers will come with conditions, a dilution of American ability to rule by fiat in Iraq. So it won't happen. If you're a pragmatist, rather than an idealist, great, that means you will eventually realize It Isn't Working, even if the plan sounded great in theory. What Bremer said, is that he doesn't believe in democracy, he doesn't beleive in the basic principles in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If elections don't come out the way he thinks they should, if the people have been "fooled" into voting for the "wrong" people, because the "wrong" people are better organized, then it's OK to set aside the election results, or not hold elections at all (if you anticipate losing). And the people who decide what is "wrong", are foreign soldiers like him. Every soldier who overthrows an elected government, and institutes a bloody dictatorship, says exactly the same things that Bremer just said. Cancelling elections, is an admission that we would lose those elections. Democracy means holding elections, and letting the winners govern. That's what was promised, before the war, but it is now clear the promises will not be kept.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103431)	6/30/2003 9:33:09 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "I'm a pragmatist Carl... Whatever works best to achieve the mission is what I advocate within certain parameters." Your policy in Iraq failed miserably. Re: "Something VERY UPSETTING that struck me, in particular, was that he claimed to have spoken with a high-level Egytian official, who told him that they still have yet to hear a request from the Bush Administration for assistance in creating a police force within Iraq. This is a TERRIBLE MISTAKE. I stated weeks ago that we need to get Arabs involved in stabilizing Iraq. I'm not keen on Saudi assistance since they have little interest in empowering Iraq, but Egypt, Morrocco, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, etc... ALL OF THEM NEED to be called upon to provide assistance." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Why should Egypt, Morocco, Oman, OAE or Turkey save our ass? Do you think that those nations really care about the Iraqis? Jesus weeps, after what the Arab states did to the Palestinians, how could you be so naive as to imagine that they would give a damn about the Iraqis? Look at it from their point of view. They'd love to see the Iraqi David beat the US Goliath. The Vietnam quagmire considerably diminished US influence, and a reduction in US influence due to an Iraq quagmire now, would be to their advantage. They had it good back when they could play the US off against the Soviet Union, but with the US the only superpower, that became impossible. What they'd like is to get the US involved f'ing around until China or Russia grows in influence to match the US. And look at it from the American point of view. If the Egyptians take over control of Bumfuk Iraq, what are the possible things that can happen? (1) The Egyptians clamp down on guerilla actions. But Egyptian sympathies are with Iraq not with the US, so this is unlikely. And in addition, this would result in Egyptian casualties, hardly something popular with the Egyptians. (2) The Egyptians leave the guerillas alone. And then what are we going to do? Guerillas would use Bumfuk as a safe haven for their raids on US soldiers. This would leave us in a sticky situation. Either toss the Egyptians out, or let the guerillas take over. (3) The Egyptians let the Iraqis begin real elections for a democratic government. But since the Baathists and the Islamic fundamentalists are the only two organized groups (in the regions of Iraq where we are having trouble, as opposed to Kurdistan), the winner of such elections will be very hostile to the US (and therefore unlikely to clamp down on guerilla activity). Re: "The longer we keep this a strictly "US show", the more of a target we makes ourselves as being an colonizer, not a enabler." After all the song and dance about how ineffective the UN was, this is one hell of a cowardly statement to make now. You were all in favor of unilateral action when you thought that Iraq was going to be an easy mission (to find WMDs that existed only in your fearful imagination), but then it blew up in your face. Now you want someone else to walk point through the mess that you created. Jesus weeps, you're a piece of work. Hawkmoon, February 8, 2003 I guess that's why the French and Germans are jumping through their @sses to have the UN occupy Iraq with several thousand troops rather than have the US do the job. #reply-18555483 Hawkmoon, February 6, 2003 But when [Saddam] essentially spits in our face and says "up yours", we have to either follow through with the threat, or back off and suffer international humuliation. #reply-18543379 Hawkmoon, September 13, 2002 Annan wanted the UN to have a say, and Bush has placed the UN in a VERY tenuous situation. Either they enforce their binding resolutions and quit relying upon the US and Britain to "contain" Saddam, or we'll go it alone and prove how worthless (rotten) the UN structure is. #reply-17987811 Re: "So the question is do we take the chance of permitting these people to come back into power via an electoral process, or do we wait until other forces can be organized and empowered?" What we're doing is waiting until "these people" are empowered through guerilla warfare. The result is the same, but more of our boys come back in body bags. Re: "It very similar to the de-Nazification process that took place in Germany." The occupation of Germany involved no guerilla war. -- Carl