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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (450340)	8/29/2003 2:20:24 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

That is baloney Kenneth....Bush has leveled on the time and difficulty of this mission........ Why do you pinheads fear real leadership? Why do you pinheads need to repeat the same old tired lies....???? Edit: Its another lie to claim that everyone thinks we should stay and prevail.....there are plenty of pinheads who want to see us pull out so they can bash Bush over that....

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (450340)	8/29/2003 3:51:16 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Kenneth, I cannot agree that we "must stay there and prevail." I do agree that would be a great and welcome result, assuming manageable costs, however, the real question is whether it's DOABLE. That's the question that those who support the war avidly do NOT want to address with anything other than platitudes and smug assertions. Under what set of assumptions can we say that we COULD prevail in our goals in Iraq? What are our REAL goals in Iraq? Are they the same as our stated goals or are they broader and, in some cases, conflicting with our stated goals? Who knows but just looking at our stated goals we can make an analysis. I see two of our primary stated goals as: * Creating a functioning, secular and western friendly democracy in Iraq, * Assuring that Iraq will not be a breeding ground and supporting arena for terrorists. Under the current set thinking it's clear that if we do not accomplish at least one of these "goals," we cannot claim, to borrow your word, to have "prevailed." When you examine the FACTS, it is PROBABLE that we will not accomplish these ends NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE SPEND, HOW MANY MEN WE LOSE AND HOW LONG WE STAY. I say that based upon the long history of that nation and that people: * They are a strongly religious people with a far different culture. Niether their religion nor their culture are accepting of those that believe differently than they do. Infidels, as we are viewed by a majority of them, are infidels and that's the end of the issue. They are strongly influenced by their religious leaders and it is not in the interests of those devout clerics to have a secular democracy when they are perched on the edge of achieving a theocratic government where religious law would become the law of the land. At the word of a few powerful clerics, any efforts we make to nation build in Iraq will turn to dust. * There are at least three different factions in Iraq with a history of animosity and each of them has it's own political goals. It's ludicrous to think that a foreign power can unite them in a functioning democracy when there is no history of a culture of democracy to use as a springboard. * Iraq and the Arab world has a deep distrust of western interference and invasion. They also have a long and violent history of resisting occupation. Iraqis have, for a decade, blamed America and the western world for sanctions on one hand, and for not supporting the 91 Shiite uprising on the other. There is not trust, warmth or deep common ground upon which to ask them to accept our leadership, especially when we assumed it at the point of a gun. * There is little in the past history of our dealings with ANY of the Arab oil nations to indicate that the U.S. will be a benevolent force that will put the interests of the Iraqi people ahead of the interests of America's lust for cheap energy. The Iraqis are far more familiar with the "other side" of America's dealings in the Mideast than we are. Whether their perception is skewed is not the issue, the fact is that there is deep skepticism and there is a substantial basis for that skepticism. * There are many passionately committed Arab citizens of other nations that will provide men and money to undermine and disrupt any effort to create a safe and functioning democracy in Iraq. The borders are necessarily porous and there is no way of keeping that influence out of Iraq. In theory these factors could be dismissed, but the reality will not allow them to be dismissed forever. Right now reality is making a strong bid for recognition and those that have their heads under the cover are scrambling for ways to spin it away. It won't work, reality is what it is. When our soldiers are trigger happy because they see Iraqi citizens on every corner as potential enemies, when our military leader decry the "lack of intelligence" (read as lack of widespread Iraqi cooperation by providing information), when our soldiers are being attacked and seriously wounded and killed on a multiple-a-day basis, when terrorists are moving freely throughout most of Iraq and are able to blow up a U.N. building and assasinate a leading Shiite cleric while killing 70+ more, when we cannot protect the oil, water and electrical facilities, and when we don't know who to fight or how to fight them, WE CANNOT "PREVAIL." That's it and unless, and until, someone can give a functional working plan that considers these factors and has some logical basis, many of us will continue to believe that we should get out "sooner, rather than later." To die in the service of your country might be a noble thing, but that death is nonetheless wasted if it was for a cause that had little or no chance of success. When that death is a result of a strategy that actually sets America back, it's a criminal waste.