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: stockman_scott who wrote (9837)	3/24/2004 1:20:22 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81568

Rand Beers, former Special Assistant to Bush -combatting terror, failed to keep Bush from terrorizing the planet. He now works for Kerry: “One year ago yesterday (3/03), I resigned from the Bush Administration to protest the Administration’s rush to war. George Bush may have declared “Mission Accomplished,” ten months ago, but yesterday’s horrific bombing in Iraq shows that American soldiers and Iraqis are still very much in harm’s way. But while Baghdad was bombed, Dick Cheney emerged from his bunker to engage in partisan attacks. It’s time for the President, the Vice-President, and the Secretary of State to stop playing politics with national security. We need to fix their failed go-it-alone policy that is making Iraq more dangerous for our soldiers and harder for them to secure the peace. I signed up with John Kerry because I know his values, experience and toughness will make peace a reality." Rand Beers 3/04

To: stockman_scott who wrote (9837)	3/24/2004 3:55:01 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

Many on this thread have rightfully maintained that the Iraq war is a mistake. What is worse is that the decision to go to war was almost a unilateral decision. The last sentence of this commentary is very very significant in that we here on this thread have always said so. I didn't realize that being correct would lead some of us to get branded as liberal and anti-right. MARCH 24, 2004 Leader Was Iraq worth it? LAST Friday was the first anniversary of the United States-led invasion of Iraq. The military strategy was said to consist of 'shock and awe'. As it turned out, there was not much shock. The Iraqis knew from the 1991 Gulf War what a mighty engine of destruction the US military can be. But Saddam Hussein's Revolutionary Guard and irregulars did seem awed enough to virtually melt away in the face of the US onslaught. The shock came later - and it was the Americans who felt it. For Iraq was in a greater mess than anyone had guessed; the devastation caused by 13 years of sanctions was far deeper than anyone had anticipated; and the Saddam loyalists who had melted away in war turned out to be rather effective guerilla fighters in peacetime. Expecting to be greeted by cheering crowds, Washington was unprepared to deal with the post-war reality. It is still struggling one year later. Was it worth it? On the plus side, Saddam is no more. There is no doubt that Iraq and the region are better off without him. The tens of thousands of bodies recovered from mass graves prove he was one of the modern world's worst tyrants. Whether or not he possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at the point of the invasion, there is no doubt that he did possess them in the 1980s and early 1990s, that he had used them in waging war on Iran and on his own people, and that he had intended to reacquire such weapons the first chance he got. In displaying its determination to dispossess a tyrant of his WMD, the Bush administration also sent a powerful signal to other rogue states that it meant business. Libya's decision to give up its nuclear programme, Iran's new-found willingness to open up its own programme to international inspection, and the rolling-up of Pakistan's nuclear weapons bazaar, all owed something to regime-change in Iraq. The administration's strongest critics must acknowledge that. On the negative side, those critics are now legion, at home and abroad. The failure to find WMD has severely harmed US credibility. Washington's unwillingness to admit it was wrong has worsened matters. The Western alliance, badly divided in the run-up to the war, has since drifted further apart. One of America's strongest allies, Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said last week that he had been 'misled' about Iraq's WMD, and that Polish troops might be withdrawn from the country next year. The new Spanish leader has threatened to do the same, unless the United Nations is given a significant role in Iraq by June 30, when an interim Iraqi government is due to be installed. The US is still supported by many countries - including Singapore, Japan and South Korea from Asia - but public opinion in most countries has turned against America, and its occupation of Iraq seems to have become a new recruiting tool for Islamic terrorist groups. The top priority now is to deny these groups a beach-head in Iraq. Whatever the merits or demerits of war a year ago, the US cannot withdraw until Iraq is stabilised. Indeed, the force strength it has in the country now - 130,000 troops, soon to be reduced to 110,000 - is woefully inadequate. But it is not going to get more troops unless the UN gains a greater say in Iraqi affairs. Washington's reluctance to cede real authority to the world body has prevented many countries, especially Muslim ones, from sending peacekeeping troops. With the June 30 deadline looming, Washington should do what it didn't a year ago: Involve the world. straitstimes.asia1.com.sg