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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (171956)	7/18/2003 12:31:51 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578295

This isn't even an issue. When you look at the good that will obviously come out of the war eventually, I think Blair had it right -- even if they were wrong they'll be right in history -- because the cause was a righteous one. Oh. but it is THE ISSUE...for one, the war was not sold on the implied rigtheousness of the "cause". This war, as you well know, was sold on the safety of Americans from tyrants who possess the world's most dangerous weapons. You cannot send this or any nation to war on a premise then change it when the initial one proves false. In the process damaging international unity, trampling over age old alliances, and destroying good will to this deep point. first and foremost, Saddam's repeated violations of the UN resolutions It was up to the UN then to decide if and when to resort to the ultimate enforcement tool....and of course we know that the invasion was taken against the UN's will...and to pre-empt your predictable response, we also know that in 1991 the UN did support the action against Iraq...finally, if we were there to support the UN's honor (laughable, since bush did his utmost to destroy the UN's honor), then we should also use the same approach with other nations who flaut the UN's will and resolutions...you know who I am talking about. Al

To: i-node who wrote (171956)	7/18/2003 11:10:55 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578295

What makes it more damning is the fact that they have not found any WMDs This isn't even an issue. When you look at the good that will obviously come out of the war eventually, I think Blair had it right -- even if they were wrong they'll be right in history -- because the cause was a righteous one. Yes, there will be good done but at what cost? Because of the inordinate drain on the US Treasury caused by Iraq, many other possibilities of doing good have been lost or postponed. Who is to say that the need in Iraq was greater or lesser than those other needs. As for the war's righteousness, nothing can be called righteous when people are led into an event under false premises as they have been with this one. And frankly, I don't think doing the right thing was the prime motivation of the neocons who were behind this war. That has become their reason after the fact when their real reasons have been proven groundless. There are tons of justifications for our action in Iraq -- first and foremost, Saddam's repeated violations of the UN resolutions -- so pick one. Even taken alone, any number of such reasons were sufficient. The motivating reasons; the reasons why Americans got behind Bush and his quest for war was because Bush used the fear of more terrorist attacks and Saddam's links to those terrorists, and the threat Saddam presented in terms of WMD and more specifically, the probable development of nuclear devises as reasons to go to war. While there may be other justifications, those were the two that convinced Americans to get behind Bush. What's surprising is the attempts of the neocons to change the scenario to fit the current picture, and the people be damned. What they don't seem to want to understand is that in a democracy, the people have a right to have a say in their destiny. That means an honest presentation of the facts and not deception. That means honoring and accepting their choice even though its not yours. That means leading them in the direction they want to go and not in a direction of your choosing. Watching this unfold, I now understand why neocons are so arrogant and believe they know what's best for the Amer. people.......its because the Amer. people tend to be slow to 'get it'. It makes them look like they are not much better than cattle. However, that misconception is what leads to the overstepping of all those who prescribe to the doctrine of arrogance. The Amer. people may be slow on the uptick but they will get it and when they do their will be a price to be paid. In fact, if this issue of the WMD and the purchase of uranium doesn't bring down the Bush and Blair administrations, both at a minimum will be seriously damaged. There is always a price to be paid when you fool the people in a democracy. To often, people have to learn that fact the hard way.

To: i-node who wrote (171956)	7/18/2003 11:54:24 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578295

Published on Thursday, July 17, 2003 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution U.S. High Horse Now Riderless by Jay Bookman Some people are born humble. Others have humility thrust upon them. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example, was asked in a recent interview whether he still had faith in prewar intelligence claiming a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. "I think that the, the, information we had over a period of time that I cited that the intelligence community gave to me and I read as opposed to ad-libbing was correct. It, it, it was carefully stated . . ." Talk about carefully stated. It's telling to see the bantam rooster of the Bush administration turn so halting and defensive, insisting that, hey, he had only been reading what somebody else handed him. Then again, there's a lot of that going around these days. In fact, if Vietnam was the place where America lost her innocence, Iraq may be the place where we lose our arrogance. The once-triumphant Richard Perle has gone underground. The sublimely smug William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and stalwart champion of empire, no longer looks as though he just swallowed a canary. Crow is more like it. And we've heard more from Saddam Hussein in recent weeks than from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Maybe because Saddam, unlike Wolfowitz, has a plan that's actually working. The humility of Rumsfeld and others, while belated, is well-earned. Too many of our soldiers are still dying. Too many others, living every day with the knowledge that an attack could come from anywhere, now find themselves acting with the brutality that has long been required of occupying forces. The transformation is no doubt necessary for their self-defense, but it may haunt their nights for years. Contrary to previous assurances, our top generals now admit that we will be stuck in Iraq for years at a current cost of a billion dollars a week, not including substantial reconstruction costs. The need to keep at least 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future also means that our military will be seriously overextended for a long time. Globally, the credibility of the United States is in tatters. At a time when both North Korea and Iran truly do seem to be moving toward a nuclear capability -- as contrasted with the fictitious nuclear program attributed to Iraq -- we find ourselves in a weak position, both militarily and diplomatically, to challenge them. We've even been reduced to asking, all but begging, other nations to contribute troops to Iraq, but most are declining. They want no part of a war that they advised against, a war they were ridiculed by U.S. officials for opposing, a war that now seems to be going bad. Anybody can make mistakes, of course. But mistakes born of arrogance are particularly hard to accept, and our leaders made plenty, right from the beginning. The United Nations would never dare to withhold its approval for an invasion, yet it did. The Iraqi people would welcome us with parades and confetti, but instead it's been rocket-propelled grenades. Weapons of mass destruction posed a grave threat to our safety of our loved ones, yet so far none has been found. And the notion that we could create a democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon to the rest of the Islamic world is now exposed for the romantic claptrap it had always been. For a year now, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others have treated U.S. intelligence agencies as little more than public-relations flacks, tasked to produce propaganda that the CEO needed to sell a product. They drew up no Plan B in case they were wrong about Iraq, because the notion that they could be wrong never entered their minds. Any who dared suggest otherwise were dismissed as fools, traitors or appeasers. Even when smart people, experienced people, such as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, tried to tell them that an occupation of Iraq might be expensive and require a lot of manpower, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly scoffed. And in that willful blindness, they have led us here. Today, and tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future, our men and women in uniform will be dealing with the consequences of their leaders' misinformed arrogance. But surely, those who made the mistakes should face consequences, too. "If Donald Rumsfeld was here," Spc. Clinton Deitz of the 3rd Infantry Division told ABC News in Baghdad, "I'd ask him for his resignation." Jay Bookman is deputy editorial page editor. © 2003 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ###