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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119904)	11/18/2003 1:42:59 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I predict: The Bush Administration's new plan, Iraqization, means withdrawing under fire, retreating without having defeated the enemy. This will decrease our "footprint" in Iraq, to 100,000 soldiers by April 2004, and 50,000 by election-time. As they do this, they will withdraw from the populated areas, to fortified bases in the desert. This will decrease U.S. casualties. This plan implies abandoning every other goal of the war. All the nonsense about freedom and democracy for Iraq will be quietly forgotten. The Administration will deny this was ever a goal. Or perhaps they will pretend Iraq is a democracy, when it obviously isn't. All the contracts and sweetheart deals for Bush's oil buddies will be dead letters. The Quislings who collaborated with us, will move to L.A. or die. In the chaos, Al Queda will acquire another Safe Haven. All our enemies will be encouraged to continue defying us: Iran will continue their nuclear weapons program, Syria will continue supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia will continue funding terrorists and funding a world-wide Hate America propaganda campaign. Iraqization will turn out to be one more bit of wishful thinking based on false assumptions. The hope is, these hastily thrown-together security forces who will replace us, will be able to hold the ground as we retreat, and will stay loyal to us. Both these assumptions, I predict, are wishful thinking. I predict that, as our soldiers leave, our control (which is entirely based on Force, and nothing else) will disappear. Oh, I also predict we will be powerless to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, from Pakistan to Iran to Saudi Arabia to Syria. Whatever government emerges in Iraq, after U.S. soldiers leave, will be fiercely nationalist, and will probably seek to acquire nuclear weapons (since all their neighbors will have them). We will be powerless to stop this.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119904)	11/18/2003 6:34:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Virtually 100% of the American people thought so, which is why there was 100% support for the war. Today, America would be just as united as the "Greatest Generation", Most of America believes that we WERE attacked on 9/11. But some of you just want to call it a "criminal act". Afghanistan didn't attack us. Nor did we really have any firm proof that Bin Laden's people had launched that attack. In fact, according to this link, BL didn't OFFICIALLY claim responsibility until almost a year AFTER 9/11. islamonline.net So, Jacob, on what basis did we have the right to attack Afghanistan? We didn't obtain the official evidence until after we'd "done the deed". And the same situation will likely present itself with regard to Iraq. Both those countries had invaded a string of other countries, before December 1941, and the U.S. stayed out of it. We acted only when we were attacked. And in retrospect, was that decision right or wrong? What if the US had opted to join France and Britain in 1939, rather than 1941? We were effectively involved in the war anyway from 1940 onward because we were escorting convoys to England (handing them off to the Brits near Greenland/Iceland). And we launched economic sanctions against Japan over their invasion of Manchuria.. All of those people died because people very much like yourself were more than willing to wait until the threat could no longer be avoided, and in fact, sought us out as targets. This is extremely applicable to the threat of Islamo-Fascism.. We've waited 10-15 years to confront it effectively. And now it's gotten so big that it's required the US to invade intransigent countries in hopes of disrupting, or counteracting their "gameplan" for dominating the middle east. In Vietnam, we were "invited" in, by a "government" that was a creation of the CIA, and had zero democratic legitimacy. Just as the Russian and Chinese advisors were "invited" by Ho Chi Minh. And just as the government of Laos after 1975 was a creation of Hanoi. Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (119904)	11/18/2003 10:42:18 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

For years before we entered the war, both Japan and Germany had been engaged in massive human rights abuses. We knew all about Germany's concentration camps, and the massacres in China, and we did nothing. Both those countries had invaded a string of other countries, before December 1941, and the U.S. stayed out of it. We acted only when we were attacked. I hope you weren't being critical there. Clearly the US was following the type of policies you prescribe pre-41.