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 (119071)	11/12/2003 11:44:06 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "No one was sure that the US could achieve victory in Afghanistan Bilow. In fact, I recall warnings aplenty that the US would get sucked in there as the Soviets had." "No one"? Is that your final answer? It was a fairly easy calculation that Afghanistan would welcome us, and I posted as such before the war. Here's a reminder: Bilow, September 15, 2001 I wouldn't worry too much about Afghanistan. Like I said, all indications are that it will not be bloody at all. It is possible that you will see a happy mob scene similar to the one when US troops rolled into Kuwait. The Taliban has been running the country into the ground, and there's a lot of indications that they're tired of it. So that argument doesn't convince me that you're still not just a defeatist ... #reply-16357787 Re: "You simple don't believe that a nation consisting of 33% of the global GDP, and it's most powerful military is capable of effecting change in Iraq ..." That's right. While our military is EASILY the "most powerful" in the world, there are things that are far beyond its abilities. One of those things is policing Iraq. Policing is not the only duty that our military is less than perfect at. The films that our armed forces produce have never won any awards. No field manual has ever been selected for a Pulitzer prize. Our military uniforms are nowhere near as sexy as French lingerie. Etc. Re: "... that we don't have the right to do so ..." This is not true, in that I supported our intervention in Afghanistan. We are a sovereign nation and can do whatever the heck we want to. Re: "... nor that such a positive change in that country is in our long-term strategic interest." I disagree completely. If it were possible for us to change Iraq with military force, I'd be all for it, just as I was in favor of our intervention in Afghanistan. The problem with Bush's war is not one of morality or our country's objectives. The problem is that the war is hopeless, and eventually we will be forced to run like a bitch dog with her tail between her legs. And the sooner we get out of there, the better it will be for us. What you're doing here is painting my position as if I were a typical left wing anti-war peacenik. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-losing. Re: "Yet, we conquered Iraq with far fewer men than previously thought necessary ..." I wasn't surprised that we could knock over the Saddam regime with the troops we had. In fact, I wrote as such before the war, and went on to note that while we had enough troops to tip over Saddam, we did not have nearly enough to control the hostile civilian population: Bilow, March 5, 2003 We have enough to conquer Baghdad, but as far as keeping Iraq under military control in the face of a hostile civilian population, we are woefully undermanned. Here's proof, from the military itself: "Force Requirements in Stability Operations" ... ... Iraq has a population of 24 million. Using the 20 per 1000 ratio that Britain used in bringing Northern Ireland under control, the US will need an occupation force of 480,000. Oh, and those are Army forces, you don't get to count the Air Force or Navy, and in the event of ongoing terrorism (i.e. the Israeli experience) they could get stuck there for years. And only then, after tens of thousands of body bags, we retreat with our tails between our legs, having relearned the lesson that our fathers learned in Korea and Vietnam -- don't get involved in land wars in Asia unless you can get some other party to supply the cannon fodder. #reply-18657926 Yes, our military is incredibly proficient at defeating enemy military forces. But our military is quite inefficient at pacifying hostile civilians. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (119071)	11/12/2003 11:44:30 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "I'm not avoiding it.. I just don't agree with it. The fact is that the US is doing very well amongst over 2/3 of the Iraqi population, the Kurds and Shiites. It's only the Sunnis that we're receiving problems from." This is just more Barney BS. "I wuv you, you wuv me. Us, the Kurds and the Shiites are a happy family!" The simple truth is that the Kurds and Shiites don't luv us much more than the Iwaqis. All those ME MFers only see us as a useful tool for beating up on other ME MFers. To that end, they will tell us whatever sweet lie they think will help their faction gain power over their enemies. The simple truth about Iraq was printed in a secret CIA document dated Monday that was so depressing (to you, to me it is only realistic) that it has already been leaked to the press: C.I.A. Report Suggests Iraqis Are Losing Faith in U.S. Efforts NY Times, November 12, 2003 ... Among other concerns raised by the C.I.A. report, the officials said, was the danger that Iraqi Shiite Muslims, who represent a majority of the country's population, could soon join minority Sunni Muslims in carrying out armed attacks against American forces. ... nytimes.com Re: "And it may take a combination of Kurd/Shiite to suppress the Sunni "third leg" within Iraqi society." It's quite possible to give power to the Kurds and Shiites and to let them run Iraq over the Sunnis. But that won't stop us from being run out of the country. And anyway, this is just another hopeless stab at a strategy to save a hopeless war. The stark fact that you're even discussing it is an indication of how badly the situation has deteriorated. Re: "If anything, what is at risk is the future of Iraq. It may be that Iraq, as we know itm, is doomed." I don't give a rat's butt for what happens to Iraq. What I care about is my country, the USA. Iraq is as doomed as Lebanon or Somalia. Thousands of Americas are alive today because Reagan decided against intervening in Lebanon and whosis decided against intervening in Somalia, after we got our nose bloodied there. We'd have been run out of those places too, just like Iraq, but Jesus Weeps, Iraq is by far the toughest of the three. Again, there is no question that our armed forces could have easily conquered Somalia or Lebanon. But our armed forces could not have stayed there and successfully policed the nut case locals. -- Carl