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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (441600)	8/12/2003 11:18:44 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 769667

Hi JDN. I, too, hope that they can train Iraqis to take over for our troops. The sooner the better. Maybe, just maybe, the population will not support these guerrilla attacks when they are directed at Iraqis and not Americans. It's too soon to know that, however, since I've heard estimates of as many as a half dozen groups that are currently engaging in guerrilla attacks and I don't even know what all of their goals are, what motivates them and whether, without the anti-occupationers passion to fuel their acts, they would stop. I also have heard that we don't intend to stay any longer than necessary. The problem I'm having is one of credibility and suspicion of their goals. We were told that we wouldn't have invaded just to aid the Iraqi people by one of the architects of the Iraqi policy, Wolfowitz, and yet the other purposes, even viewed in light of the most favorable evidence that they had pre-invasion, didn't seem to support the question of why invade AND WHY NOW. In view of that seemingly glaring discrepancy, my question is what are their goals and when will it be no longer "necessary" for us to be there. Without knowing what the underlying purposes of the invasion and occupation were, and how much economic or strategic value this administration places on those purposes, I cannot envision the set of circumstances that will allow us to call the job complete and leave. In view of the costs of this war in terms of what it is doing to the world arms race and American influence, as well as the human and economic costs that we are bearing, I'm not willing to sit quietly in the dark and wait for the lights to come on. I guess, however, that Congress and the majority of American citizens are. Of course this doesn't compare to Vietnam. But as you well know, Vietnam in it's early years didn't compare to Vietnam either. The ingredients for a long term debacle are, however, very similar to what we had early on in Vietnam. If we had declared victory, or defeat, and left Vietnam when the writing was on the wall, there would have been a lot more young men who had not come home in body bags or wounded and disabled. We're still paying that price and there was no benefit. I think that if we look at this as skeptics and tell the administration that it has to convince us that this is worth it, and that it WILL WORK, we are better off than if we BELIEVE that they know more than we do, have good motives and that we can trust their motives and efficiency. The sad fact is that our own history is replete with examples of the recurring truth that politicians will always spin the facts to make them look good. When our nations blood and capital are at stake, when the world refuses to back us and when so much is at stake for our children, it's up to us to make them "prove it." In view of the increasingly greater gap between what this administration stated and projected and what now appears to be the actual facts, why should we assume that they are accurate in their projections and capable in their execution. I think that Hackworth and other skeptics who know much more than you and I, are well worth listening to.