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: Bilow who wrote (114764)	9/14/2003 5:21:43 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Declare victory and get out of Iraq _______________________ By HELEN THOMAS HEARST NEWSPAPERS Friday, September 12, 2003 seattlepi.nwsource.com WASHINGTON -- President Bush should take advice from a Vietnam-era Republican senator: Declare a victory in Iraq and get out. The late Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., gave that counsel to Presidents Johnson and Nixon when things were going from bad to worse in the Vietnam War, but they ignored him. Both presidents would have looked better in the history books had they listened to the venerable senator. But, alas, neither wanted to be seen as retreating or losing a war. Bush is just beginning to come to terms with the high human and financial cost of fulfilling his obsession -- the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The loss of life among U.S. soldiers and the bleeding of the U.S. economy are beginning to hit home with the public. The result: There is a new defensiveness among Bush and his top advisers. The president also may have to give up the grand design of his neo-conservative hawkish advisers for establishing a new U.S. foothold in the Middle East and ridding it of despotic leaders. He surely has to recognize that his policy of pre-emptive or preventive war has made us a pariah among nations even as his administration implores reluctant allies to chip in troops and financial support. In his stilted address to the nation last Sunday night, Bush said he would ask Congress for approval to spend $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in addition to the $79 billion already approved for the war. "In Iraq," Bush said, "we are helping a long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East." But somehow Bush seemed to have forgotten the primary reasons he gave earlier this year to justify invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and the threat of an imminent, direct attack by Saddam Hussein. An 1,800-member U.S. task force scouring Iraq has yet to find those elusive weapons. Asked on NBC's "Today" show why Bush avoided the topic of weapons in his Sunday night speech, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice responded that the weapons were not much of a concern anymore. "Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and Saddam Hussein was the problem with weapons of mass destruction," Rice replied. "Removing Saddam Hussein removes the threat of weapons of mass destruction." A week ago Friday, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee that will be handling the multibillion-dollar request, sent a letter to Bush suggesting that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz be allowed "to return to the private sector." Obey accused the two top Pentagon officials of making "repeated serious miscalculations that have been extremely costly in lives ... degradation of the military, isolation from allies and unexpected demands on the budget that is crowding our other priorities." He did not recommend pulling out of Iraq but said that U.S. foreign policy had to have new faces. Obey also told the president that he had never seen his Wisconsin district as divided on foreign policy issues since the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, wrote in the Financial Times last Monday that Bush should ask for the resignations of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice. They are "the people who got us into this mess," Walt said. "The architects of this war have been proven wrong on almost every count." Rumsfeld has lost some of his star luster in the postwar period after previously winning salutes for his conduct of the war and the quick victory. Bush now seems to be relying more on Secretary of State Colin Powell to run the show. Bush said Iraq has become "the central front" in the campaign against terrorism. He mentioned the words "terror" or "terrorism" some 20 times in his 18-minute speech. U.S. intelligence agencies have found no link between Iraq, a solidly secular nation, and Osama bin Laden's fanatic al-Qaida. L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, wrote in The Washington Post last Monday that "occupation is unpopular with the occupier and the occupied alike." The Iraqis should be given responsibility for their own security and economic development and political system "as soon as possible," he said. The president has not decided on a timetable to exit Iraq. But with the re-election campaign looming, he has to make some tough decisions soon. The first will be to share more authority in Iraq with the United Nations. He has apparently learned the hard way that even a military superpower has limits. Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2003 Hearst Newspapers.

To: Bilow who wrote (114764)	9/14/2003 8:46:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

(1) I don't know what "globalization" really means. Then maybe you should spend a bit of time studying the concept. I would suggest starting with "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Tom Friedman. The lazzez-faire approach you seem to be advocating implicitly relies upon globalization. That by doing nothing, the Arab masses will eventually force their corrupt regimes to moderate and become accountable to assimilating into the global social and politico-economic mainstream. But how can anyone force a corrupt and repressive government, or brutal social minority to be accountable when they retain the ability to violently suppress all dissent? They can't.. And what interest does such a regime have in opening up itself to global forces and influences? None... So what do people who want a better life do? They emigrate to somewhere they can achieve these goals. And who has to accept them emigrating masses? Every other nation where they can find such opportunities (US and Europe). And what happens when they get there? Who knows.. But we know that some of them chose to learn how to fly jetliners, which they then hi-jacked and flew into heavily populated buildings in the heart of our two major cities. Either they obtain social mobility in their homelands, or they find it in other countries. These are more of your prejudices. You have zero evidence of this. People move to the US from all over the world. A lot of the Arabs who moved to Europe or America were not educated. Hello!! Have you been COMPREHENDING what the facts are pointing to? There is 30% unemployment in Saudi Arabia RIGHT NOW (US embassy states opines between 14-20%). And this is a trend that's JUST BEGINNING since 40% of the Saudi population was born AFTER 1991. arabicnews.com Europe has 15 million muslims, nearly equivalent to the entire population of Saudi Arabia or Iraq. globalpolicy.org And while I share NO SYMPATHY for the white supremist values of the following link, they do a pretty good job of presenting the facts regarding immigration statistics. I just couldn't find another link that concisely present such data: stormfront.org If current population trends continue, Caucasians, who once made up 30% of world population in 1900, will diminish to 3% by 2100. So while you choose to ignore these facts, others cannot afford to do so. They are forced to formulate policies which integrate these realities. And those who seek to destroy, or replace, western culture, understand these demographics as well as we do.. But personally, I'm tired of trying to pound these realities into your head. Hawk