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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (37981)	4/5/2004 11:17:38 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793986

If you did not see the welcoming in Iraq you were not paying attention. I posted about it repeatedly, but then, I went looking for it. You should be aware that US and Coalition forces were welcomed far more in some areas than others. For example, we were very welcome in the Kurdish areas. We were very welcomed by the "marsh Arabs." We were welcomed more by Shia than by Sunni. We were not welcomed in Saddam's strongholds. Tearing down Saddam's statues was "staged"? By that, do you mean that it was done by US forces rather than Iraqis themselves? Which is true, for the most part. The regulars on this thread all watched the famous one in Baghdad together, taking time out to post about it to each other. So we have a good memory of the events. I don't believe any of us would call it "staged," unless by "staged" you mean there were news feeds. Edit: I find it incredible, and wonderful, to be able to share news events with people all over the world, reacting in real time. Steven in the Philippines doesn't post as often as we'd like, but we have people on SI who post from Europe, Asia, and even New Zealand and Australia. Collectively, we may disagree about the fine points, but we are hard to fool. The most credulous people who post on these threads appear to be the ones who get their news solely from political organizations, of any stripe.

To: Suma who wrote (37981)	4/5/2004 11:25:48 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793986

What I did tend to think was that we would be welcomed. I understand why you might have thought that. I didn't, though, not for a minute. There are too many factors weighing against it. The best that could be hoped for is ambivalence, which is probably what we got in some quarters. I think the fall of communism in the Soviet Union is a better cultural model than liberation in WWII. I think it's possible, though, that years from now they might look back on this as having been a blessing in disguise. I won't be around by then.

To: Suma who wrote (37981)	4/5/2004 11:34:52 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793986

<<< What I did tend to think was that we would be welcomed.>>> I am naturally against war as a solution. But having said that, if GWB and his staff were to have pulled it off - if the Iraqi's truly wanted to be liberated from Saddam Hussein - and the outcome were different - I would have been happy for the Iraqi people. Back in the sixties, I thought the war in Vietnam was a terrible thing. LBJ inherited Kennedy's Best and Brightest from Harvard and Yale. The B&B were no match for LBJ who I thought was a real scoundral. LBJ made the B&B do anything he wanted. They all caved in and made excuses for the war. They made it sound legitimate that we could lose 50,000 of our young people for some phoney national interest sound bites and prevention of falling dominoes. In my mind, none of this stuff was true. I thought the war was fought because of LBJ's crazy, outsized ego. These Harvard and Yale intellectuals gave him cover. I thought LBJ was as evil as evil could be. Now, I think a little differently. I still don't think much of LBJ. I think our institutions prevented LBJ from being a real monster. There were limits to what he could do. If he were in another country, in another time, who knows what he could have done - how much suffering he could have caused. But as time goes on, I am beginning to think LBJ did far more good than harm. He really did a lot to advance civil rights and in turn human rights and rights for women. He got bills passed that a "good" President could never get passed. The point I am trying to make here is that sometimes it is difficult to see things in real time.