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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9752)	3/23/2004 5:07:06 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I think Kerry trusted Bush with the power to unilaterally go to war for two reasons. First, I think that he thought that was a way to exercise some leverage over a president that seemed intent on ignoring the world community and the U.N.. Second I think that in the wake of 9/11 Kerry was too much of a pansy politician to take an unpopular view that might ruin his chance for election to the office of the presidency. Having said that, I don't believe that Kerry would have acted in the rash and unilateral manner that Bush did. Bush wasn't in a hurry to invade Iraq because he thought there was some kind of immediate threat and because he thought that inspections wouldn't work; he was in a hurry because he thought that inspections WOULD reveal that the wmd argument was weak and he'd lose his justification if he waited. It's now apparent from the way they parlayed some very uncertain intelligence as a "sure thing," that he WANTED to invade and occupy Iraq for non-wmd reasons. If he had waited there is a good chance that the wmd issue would have been resolved through inspections and, in the event it wasn't, there is a good chance that we could have had the full force of the U.N. behind us with all of the respectability, means and resources that the U.N. would bring with it. Why do you think that immediately after our invasion there was so much Administration talk about a "generations long" presence in Iraq with a long, long timetable for elections and a return to sovereignty? It's because they intended to disrupt that country and then occupy it, control it's oil reserves, create a semi-permanent military presence there and basically further whatever interests they had. The insurgency and our continued casualties there seem to have thrown a wrench in that prospect, but time may tell that we are, in fact, committed for a generation after all. It depends on what kind of government comes to power and whether it's a puppet government or a truly sovereign one. Even the way that we invaded and occupied indicates that the Bush administration has different objectives than their stated ones. There's a difference between stitching up an arm wound and amputating at the shoulder. There were slower, less intrusive methods of dealing with Saddam Hussein that did not involve destroying every institution in that country, wiping out their police force, and creating such havoc that our own country had to take over governance, security, the economy and, in addition, fund all of it from our own treasury. As far as what had been done by the Clinton administration, I thought that was overdone as well. You should remember, however, that there's a big difference between saying something and throwing aircraft at it on the one hand, and going in, taking control of a country that has a long history of violence, civil strife, resistance to occupation and a culture, religion and mores that we understand dimly, if at all, on the other hand. In one instance you're anteing up, in the other you're betting the farm in a game where you don't know all the rules. That's what I call a sucker bet.