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: Bilow who wrote (128825)	4/9/2004 8:45:58 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

*Our problem is not with the Iraqis who want to talk. It's with the Iraqis who want to fight.* Oh Carl, Carl, Carl... Might I suggest that you may have gotten the cartesian cart before the equine equations here? The problem (and I can assure you it is not one I share:), as I see it, is the lack of adequate data points by which you can determine the mass of the inertial Talkers vs the mass of your motive Fighters. I know. I know. Your esteemed theory resorts to the well known and highly respected *assumption* that the potential force of these two factors is relatively equivalent to those of the suggested examples of Algeria and Vietnam. This is understandable, but as you well know it remains... inconclusive. Indeed, when considered in light of the recent advancements in Loose String Theory, one can easily see potential violations of the space time continuum in your calculations. In the first instance, your comparative ratios fail to account for the efficient removal of Fighters and potential Fighters, by the prior stupidities of the late Saddam administration. The have you compared his efficiency to those of the French who preceded "us" in your exemplars? But this is just one of the variations in the spiral of history which could produce error in your calculations. Then too, the political basis underlying your projected unsuccessful outcome in Iraq, is teetering on the edge of an abyss. Indeed your political operatives are unable to manage a Unified Field Theory wherein they can both condemn a failure to foresee the WTC horror, and yet proclaim the wisdom of a future course which offers no more than the chance to sit and wait for the potential irradiation which is to come. ...What is it you numerologists say about probabilities, large complex systems, and things which may go wrong ...going wrong? <Hoo><"LOL!!"><Hoo> But still, they insist on stuffing this garbage down my throat; expecting me to disgorge a Presidential pellet as an award for their efforts. ...I don't think so. Whatever potential political basis you might be relying upon is rapidly being frittered away by defeatist Democratic offerings and the new UnAmerican Committee For Sedition. Who, by all appearances, are bound and determined to demonstrate once more exactly why it is that political opposition has long been said halt at the nation's shoreline. Come to think of it ...unless I am mistaken... you have not even defined the point at which success devolves into failure. Just how long do you expect to be able to continue asserting that this focal point arrived in March of 2003? Further, and despite your protestations at the sight of much death, you have failed to present a certified whole number which the publicans are currently unwilling to pay to avoid collision with your alternate universe of an Iranian Iraq. Moreover, thanks to the apparent efficiencies of the *New And Improved Prime Time Military Police* Force, time may in fact be working against you. For unless your hefty assumptions regarding the conversion of Talker masses into Fighter energies prove true... your equations may soon be missing a critical element. In sum just let me say this. There are innumerable Free Radicals sticking out of your equations Carl, and the negative numbers you expect them to produce have not yet been written. For my part, I have learned not to count such chickens before they hatch. <Hoo?> I will however endeavor to remember these pre-mature expectorations of yours, and to remind you of same at an appropriate point in the now undiscovered** future. Should it be absolutely necessary. ...Which I doubt. But you just never know. ...What with all the Loose Strings, prions, alzheimers, mad cow, and so on. <Hoo><Hoo> 0\|0

To: Bilow who wrote (128825)	4/10/2004 3:37:10 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

Former British foreign secretary blasts US policy in Iraq Sat Apr 10,11:52 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Former British foreign secretary Douglas Hurd sharply criticised Washington's policy in Iraq (news - web sites), saying the United States was mistaken in believing it could impose democracy in the war-shattered country through the use of force. AFP/File Photo "You really don't win hearts and minds by filling hospitals and mortuaries," said Hurd, who was foreign secretary between 1989 and 1995 in the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. Hurd was referring to the recent fighting in Iraq between US forces and hardline Sunni and Shiite Muslims that has left hundreds of Iraqis dead and hundreds more wounded. "The idea that you could actually not just get rid of a tyrant but then impose democracy by the means we have been using is, I think, contradicted by most people who have any knowledge of the area," Hurd told BBC radio on Saturday. He said the recent upsurge in violence was "almost inevitable" and added that the US-led coalition should hand over power to Iraqis who have real influence in the country and not just those who have "curried favour" with the Pentagon (news - web sites). Hurd also criticised Britain's close support for the US administration over Iraq and urged Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) to send an envoy to Baghdad to explain his government's position. He said someone such as former NATO (news - web sites) secretary Lord Robertson could carry out such a mission. Hurd's open criticism of Blair's government was unusual in that the Conservative party has so far refrained from criticizing the Labour Party's policy on Iraq and has in general backed the US-led invasion. British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon meanwhile defended government policy, saying life had become much better in Iraq a year after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), despite current violence. There was a "sense of real tangible progress in the country," he told the BBC: "I accept that we have got to do more to sort out the security situation, but we are not going to do that by sitting back and allowing extremists, terrorists to attack and kill, not only coalition forces but also Iraqis themselves trying to rebuild their own country." Asked if Britain still supported US policy on Iraq, Hoon replied: "I am perfectly happy to say 'yes' to that question." news.yahoo.com