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: stockman_scott who wrote (114306)	9/10/2003 2:38:46 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I like this Gen Clark very surprised the Pentagon has not attempted to silence him his upcoming book should be very revealing in this country, books count much more than interviews and much more than newspaper columns the book is a pillar into the historical annals dont count out Clark he might be a VP candidate, by default it adds credibility, keeps his opinion at the table, and allows for sage counsel / jim

To: stockman_scott who wrote (114306)	9/10/2003 3:42:17 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

I have no problem with Gen Clark, but will comment on a couple of those positions <<<A final reason to pay attention to Clark's version of "I told you so" is that it's linked to a broader analysis. He will argue in a book to be published next month that the administration showed "a fundamental misunderstanding of modern war." By rushing into battle, it lost the biggest advantage of American power, which is "the incredible leverage to bring other allies on board to help us." >>> The US tried that desperately, and for nearly 6 months. France ended any general UN support by promising a veto. US ended up with over 50 Nations, including Australia, England and Spain who supported, in various ways, the war on Iraq. Airspace was critcal, we got what was needed even from Arab States. . . << Bush's mistake, he argues, was not in overestimating U.S. power but in underestimating it. Rather than alienating allies by crowing about America's new empire, the administration should have understood that "we already have a virtual empire," Clark says. The power of that virtual empire lies in America's inescapable dominance of the global economy and the international organizations that underpin it. >>> Yes, an empire, but it was our economy that was placed most at risk by the 9-11 attacks, and what better representation than the WTC? Without airlines and air travel we would have lost much of our economic power. Part of the US power is incorporated in 10 Carriers and undetectable airplanes that can fly half way around the world, drop a missile into a chimney or a window, and return home before landing. The job now is to learn how to use that power in a proper and efficient manner, if only to alert or frighten those Nations who support terrorists .Can they now take a hint , from what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq ? We know Saudi Arabia learned- how about Syria and Iran? This is not only the US that is "starting things". If terrorists from Syria attack the US they should know what is going to happen-something bad.. The major job to be worked out by the brains in the think tanks and the expanded intelligence agencies is to precisely locate the bad guys and confirm they are the bad guys, then put huge diplomatic pressure on the nation involved to cure the problem. The main difference between GWB and the UN or other leaders is equivalent to the difference between a legal contract and a verbal discussion . One has a time limit and a penalty for not complying to the terms. GWB has a contract out on terrorists, but Israel has to handle their problems on their own. .Sig . : . . . .