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: Rascal who wrote (108395)	7/27/2003 5:24:41 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I really wanted to know what you think about this article Written by Social Science Prof from a minor Sacramento College. About what I would expect from a Academic at this level. Poorly written, unfounded assumptions. It reads like he cribbed it from Op-Eds he has been reading. It's tripe, Rascal. Sorry.

To: Rascal who wrote (108395)	7/27/2003 11:57:32 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I really wanted to know what you think about this article I thought the article was important. Since it is obvious that the PNAC has wanted to invade Iraq since the Clinton era, and it is equally obvious that WMD were never the real reason, Patching has made a valuable point in illustrating that the Neocons were carrying out their backroom agenda while producing WMD and Liberation smoke and mirrors for the public. (No wonder those folks who are paying attention bemoan this Administration's penchant for secrecy). The question that arises from this is, why did they not present their real plan to the public? It was in position papers, readily available to any foreign government that cared to read it, so secrecy is not the issue. Did they think that it was not "sexy" enough for the public to buy into? Did they think that they could get away with the false-front reasons? Regardless, at this point, it appears that the Neocons showed little respect for the democratic process or the American people. I agree with Patching that the benevolent hegemony plan faces an uphill battle for acceptance now that it has come so late to the discussion, but I do not agree that it is inevitably doomed because of the sneaky way it has come to light. The plan may have merit, but it should have been discussed publicly, by grownups, before the war.