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: KyrosL who wrote (108447)	7/27/2003 10:14:14 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

If we could have stopped the slaughter, that was the time to intervene and if the goal was only to stop the killing, I would have supported that effort -- yes. But remember, we were trying our best to start a civil war in Iraq -- and when the civil war fell short of our expectations then we let them die. We should not have been trying to start a war in the first place.

To: KyrosL who wrote (108447)	7/28/2003 3:25:44 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi KyrosL; Re: "Would you have supported intervention in the Iraq civil war that followed Gulf War I, when the Shiites and marsh Arabs revolted and Saddam savagely suppressed them?" (1) It would be a damn rare foreign civil war that I would support the US getting involved in. Especially one halfway around the world where we are roundly disliked and distrusted by the locals. (2) All things being equal (and I see no reason to prefer the Shiite fundamentalists to the Baathist socialists), I would prefer that our military intervene on the stronger side, rather than the weaker. (3) The question has an underlying assumption, and that is that our intervention would be successful in some way. That is, the world would be somehow made a better place by our intervention. Since our occupation of Iraq is making Iraq into a worse place, and in addition is attriting our armed forces, I don't see why an intervention 10 years ago would have been better. What's pathetic about this line of reasoning is that these justifications (that the US needed to attack Iraq in order to help the Iraqis) do not belong in the mouths of conservatives. These are the things that the liberals should be arguing. den Beste's argument that we must whip Iraq into democratic bliss makes more sense, at least from a conservative standpoint. Right now the big problem for the war party is not what the liberals think about the farce, but instead what the US military and the right wing thinks about it. There are warning flags going up all over from former US military officers. These are the guys who normally support (intelligent) use of our armed forces. For example: Now the piper is being paid Leon T. (Tim) Hunt, Star Tribune, July 26, 2003 Frank Gaffney Jr. in the July 20 Op Ex is so partisanly political and so wrong I feel weak inside. I was an Army officer who served eight presidents, four Democratic and four Republican. I have no partisan ax to grind. I was also the original desk officer for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan when we created U.S. Central Command from the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. I know Iraq through that long experience (with access to all-source intelligence). On promotion to colonel just before the first Gulf War I was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in India, where we identified and shut off (thanks to the government of India) Iraq's source of precursor materials for Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons of mass destruction program. Regarding Gaffney's article, "Bush's critics are making Saddam's day": This president made his own bed and has to stand to history for his own actions. He and his administration failed to do their homework before they jumped to war. If Saddam is alive and gloating, it is because the political ramifications and consequences not only were not well considered in advance; all who urged more appropriate measures to convincingly and completely defang and box Saddam Hussein were chided and denigrated. Included were great and wonderful soldier/statesmen like former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak, Gen. Wesley Clark, and any and all others who suggested otherwise. He even fired his own outstanding Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, and his top deputy for daring to point out the cost of postwar operations. Now the piper is being paid. Rightfully in American democracy questions are being raised that should have been asked and answered before his premature commitment to war exposed a bumbling, lying administration. These questions must be asked; otherwise, we will never know the lessons we need to learn from this conflict. There is no spin that partisan politicians can put on this Iraqi debacle that we are in. Saddam Hussein survives not in spite of but because of this administration's foolhardy rush to war in a situation where the same results could have been achieved at much less loss of treasure, goodwill and faith in the integrity and capabilities of our president and his administration. Leon T. (Tim) Hunt, Fergus Falls, Minn., is a retired U.S. Army colonel. startribune.com -- Carl P.S. I should note that I have no idea if "Leon T. (Tim) Hunt" is a real person or not. Sometimes the leftwing puts out fake articles and the above could be an example. But the sentiments are commonly voiced now by US military types.