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: Maurice Winn who wrote (115754)	9/26/2003 11:50:19 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Didn't Wolfowitz say that WMDs were just a bureaucratic reason and not really the reason or even a major part of the reason for the Iraq invasion? Wolfowitz is one of the original people in the first Bush administration who was shocked and horrified when we failed to support the uprising against Saddam. Me, too, although I wasn't in the administration, just a lowly voter. I totally lost all respect for Bush pere then. I caught a bit of a speech by Wolfowitz on C-Span within the last day or so, where he discussed how he believes that the reluctance of the Iraqis to cooperate with us largely stems from the fact that we screwed/shafted them then. Wolfowitz has wanted to liberate the Iraqi people for over ten years. He thinks, and I agree, that if only we'd finished the job we started, the world would be a better place. But, the generals we have, by and large, were scarred by VietNam, and are terrified of the use of force unless it is overwhelming and there is a clear exit strategy. In other words, they aren't all that great shakes from a military point of view. Generals who are terrified of a war that ended three decades ago aren't worth much. Wesley Clark, that choice and succulent tidbit of a man, of course, was one. They have devoted a lifetime to not finishing what they started. I do find it risible that they want to blame Vietnam on Johnson and Nixon. Soldiers who lie shouldn't have balls big enough to blame politicians for their own lies.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (115754)	9/27/2003 12:31:05 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Maurice Winn; Re: "Carl, it's a military action. Not a police action." I agree that it is a military action because our military is doing it. But it is also a police action, which, in this case, is a subset of the set of all possible military actions. What I'm saying is that it is not a "war", which requires (at least) two groups of "soldiers". Re: "It's the continued military suppression of indigenous people by an occupying country." Agreed. That's what a "police action" by the military usually is. I think we agree on this except for some unimportant naming conventions. I try to follow the US military definitions, but it really doesn't matter. It's just words, not bullets. -- Carl