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: Hawkmoon who wrote (117088)	10/17/2003 9:37:29 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<It's democracy and freedom when policies are being formulated. The time for that was BEFORE the war> As I recall, before the war, the Peace Party was told to shut up and salute the flag, and trust the government. Our Leaders, who had access to all the good Intel, assured us there would be mushroom clouds over American cities, from Iraqi nukes dropped by drone aircraft, if we didn't invade right now. And during the war, we were told to shut up and salute the flag, since it would be disloyal to voice any doubts, while American soldiers were in harm's way. And, now, after the "end of major hostilities" (when did that happen, again?), we're still supposed to shut up and salute the flag. So there always seems to be a good reason to silence the Peace Party.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (117088)	10/17/2003 10:14:01 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "It's like having the "America First!" movement continuing to denounce Roosevelt as late as 1943 for getting us involved in WWII. Or that he lied about having forewarning about Pearl Harbor.. etc." I'm a hell of a lot more convinced that Japan started the war than I'm convinced that Iraq had massive amounts of WMDs like the Liar in Chief claimed. Be realistic. You're comparing the political situation after the US was undeniably attacked by the forces of a sovereign government, with the political situation after President Bush cried wolf. The Iraq war was strictly a "preemptive" war that Bush started for reasons that just didn't pan out. The supposed peace that was going to stop the squabble in Palestine fell apart, as did the expectations that Iraq's oil would pay for its own rape, that the Iraqi people would welcome our troops with flowers, that the rest of the world would demand permission to join in the occupation, that the UN would happily set up camp in Iraq, that the Arab world would be calmed down by seeing the happy campers in Iraq, that Iran or North Korea would stop its nuclear program for fear of also being invaded, that Syria or Saudi Arabia would stop terrorism in Palestine, that the American people would see how wrong the Democrats were for arguing for peace, that the world would see how dishonest the UN was for deliberately hiding Iraq's WMDs, etc. The whole thing has been a disaster for not only Bush, but for the US too, and you expect to see no political consequences. When wars go this badly it's inevitable that there will be political repercussions. Don't you remember what happened to Johnson after Vietnam blew up in his face? By contrast, Reagan and Clinton had the good sense to get out of Lebanon and Somalia after we got our nose bloodied there, but Bush is so stupid that he goes back to the hornet's nest for more. And now you're impotently whining about the result of Bush's lies and miscalculations, the destruction of his political future. The situation now has gotten so bad that it took Maria Cantwell, Democratic senator from the left coast, to support the troops by adding a rider on a bill to arrange for our reserves to receive notice of their expected deployment lengths in "real" months rather than in "boots on the ground in the quagmire fantasy administration" months. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (117088)	10/17/2003 10:14:54 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is no law I know of that suspends the Bill of Rights during war time. Presidents can declare a state of emergency and increase their power that way, but they had best be careful with that also. There is only so much Americans and Congress will allow. Here's how it works: They get to scream and yell. We get to answer with facts and reason. The gallery gets to judge. I'm not worried.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (117088)	10/18/2003 3:38:38 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<The bottom line is that we're at war with Islamic militantcy and terrorist states and it's time to get "on the train", or at least bite your tongue.. > Hawk, I understand your reasoning, but I disagree. I like freedom and that means first and foremost freedom to think and freedom to express, followed immediately after by freedom to own and trade property. When blood lust is up, the old chimpoid tribal fighting rules tend to come to the fore, but keeping the human sentience and reasoning and individual decision making is as valid as any other time. At any given time, situations are changing and constant reappraisal of decisions previously made is required. In a democracy, that doesn't mean handing a blank cheque to the leader of the day, it means constant reappraisal by everyone interested in proceedings so that if necessary, they can change their minds. Those wanting a particular train of thought and action will find it annoying to be looking over their shoulders and in the front lines, those involved must have confidence that they are being backed and that they don't have to look over their shoulders. But further back in the thinking and planning department and into the democratic foundations, there must remain constant reappraisal, otherwise, the poor buggers at the front lines might still be in the trenches in Flanders and nobody is thinking, just following a series of leaders who never change their minds. <It's democracy and freedom when policies are being formulated > Policies are constantly being formulated, reformulated, abandoned, updated, changed with some zig-zags thrown in just in case. It's an ongoing process requiring constant review by all involved, right back to the electorate who bears the responsibility. If I was a soldier in Iraq, I would not want to be simply left to the previous plan if things have actually gone very badly and no progress is being made. I would want to think that those sitting comfy at home were super-mindful of my situation and were ensuring that my life was not being put at risk unduly. I would want the democratic process to be humming flat out, with dissenting voices heard, new ideas promoted, all new facts considered, with any decision to make some changes to be made quickly. I am not saying that things are going badly. Before the war, this is about how I thought it would go. 100 minutes of actual conflict, with the biggest problem being the tanks driving around Baghdad looking for somebody to shoot at. Then, an urban insurrection because I couldn't see any other means for Saddam's forces to fight back and win. Having Al Qaeda and Hamas and anyone else willing to join an Islamic Jihad was certain too. If anything, I'd say things have gone extremely well and still are going well. I of course prefer to have a NUN, but my Plan B of having King George II Colinize and Condoleezzanize Iraq for some time is okay too. I far prefer having the USA run Iraq rather than Saddam running Iraq. I expect that most Iraqis will be okay with it too, on the assumption that they'll get the place back soon enough and they don't want to be left in chaos with major fratricidal religious civil war. It's very annoying to have crazies like Lt Gen Gumby claiming to have the true idol on his side, whereas Allah is a fake [which begs the question as to why Gumby's idol hasn't given him the word on the whereabouts of Saddam, Osama and Omar - it seems Allah is in fact doing a better job than Gumby's idol]. It makes me think I should pull the plug on my support. But there are always some wackoes on the good guys side and they need to be found, investigated and eliminated from proceedings and in some instances from life. Plenty of vicious, criminal, thugs will use conflict as an excuse to indulge their personal insanities. The fog of war provides an excellent smoke-screen if conflict isn't carefully managed. It doesn't take many barbarians to turn the good guys into the evil empire. Those guys should be looking over their shoulders. Mqurice