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: Elsewhere who wrote (127386)	3/26/2004 12:34:38 PM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

*Did you read this speech?* No, but it is a perfect example of the problem I have with him. He doesn't seem to be able to make the argument without reliance on the WMD issue. He and/or his Neocon's don't get it. For Iraq to be worth the effort, it must be worth doing if no WMD issue ever arose. It must be worth doing even if it results in a break up of Iraq. It must be worth doing because of a vision of the future that required there to be no Saddam in the palace. And that vision must be so important that even if the patient dies due to Saddam's removal, the vision of the future being sought will not die with the patient. There was a time when you could slap a completely inadequate "Unconditional Surrender" on your war efforts and get all the support you needed. That isn't going to work for any "War on Terrorism." I don't hear a vision of the future from Bush. I didn't hear it before the Invasion. And I have just about given up ever hearing it. It requires more than apple pie in the sky platitudes about standing at the ramparts against WMD's. He has to give Arabs a reason to buy the pie and that reason has to be consistent with their experience not ours. It has to be more than just "Do this now, or America will slap you silly." And for better or worse that's what Islamists likely hear when we preach "democracy" to them. 0\|0