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: Rascal who wrote (115804)	9/27/2003 7:44:24 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

Oh, I think he pretty clearly places the blame squarely on the Bush Administration, for their insincerity and wishful thinking. When a person or nation first gets on a slippery slope, and the downward momentum is as yet modest, it is still possible for many to pretend they are somewhere else. We all seem to be hard-wired, deep in our genes, to do this, even though it prolongs the agony, every time we do it. The Wall at the Vietnam Memorial would be only half its present size, if we had pulled all out troops out as soon as our government figured out we couldn't win it. Right after Tet 1968, or at the latest by early 1969. The statements and documents and policies of our leaders make clear, they knew by then. Yet we deluded ourselves with "Vietnamization" and "Peace With Honor". Saving face was more important than saving lives. JS@waistdeepinthebigmuddy.com

To: Rascal who wrote (115804)	9/27/2003 7:50:37 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re. Thomas Friedman - "2 Servings of Reality, Please" Looks like Friedman is having a crisis. He's finally getting it. Nadine called him "bipolar" - after some optimistic columns he has reached the opposite end of his mood spectrum again. But still not ready to place the blame. In my opinion it's no time for "Schadenfreude". You know I was against the war. Yet in my opinion the countries which opposed the invasion should now try to assist the USA. A failed Iraq mission could have ugly consequences: the backlash of a USA which cuts itself off from the world, a collapse of western interests all over the world with a subsequent eruption of various local military conflicts. The target ought to be to find a middle road between ignoring a genocide like in Rwanda and invading and occupying a country against the overwhelming majority of the world opinion in future. What to do in Iraq? Powell has introduced a rather fast timetable, #reply-19344758 A national election within a year would mean a shorter period from now than the time we have been focusing on Iraq here on FADG, since spring/summer 2002. The aim of a quick exit of US forces means that the neocons would have to put up with not reaching all their targets. Iraq won't become a G7-level country within months; the election might lead to a moderate Islamic government. But the main aim of the invasion has been to remove Saddam's regime, and this one has been reached, hasn't it? So if the Bill Kristols, the Rumsfelds and Wolfowitzes had the greatness to assume some modesty I am optimistic the world community would be prepared to help Iraq get back on its feet. And the USA would save many soldiers' lives and dozens of billions of future Iraq budget amendments.