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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (48415)	4/11/2004 4:39:10 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Israeli army chief urges US victory in Iraq AFP[ SUNDAY, APRIL 11, 2004 05:33:11 PM ] JERUSALEM: A lasting US military success in Iraq is vital for Israel as it will give a boost to political moderates in the region, the Israeli army's chief of staff, General Moshe Yaalon, said on Sunday. timesofindia.indiatimes.com

To: RealMuLan who wrote (48415)	4/11/2004 7:51:50 PM
From: que seria	Respond to of 74559

Jay's reference was historical--to the evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Saigon (and ditching of copters next to the U.S. fleet) as the Communist scum swarmed into the city to replace mild authoritarianism with full-bore totalitarianism, and most anyone who could leave, left. If Vietnam and other examples over the last 50 years have taught us (the U.S.) anything, it should be: 1. Don't intervene in (much less cause) regime changes in foreign countries and expect anything less than implacable resistance--unless you are prepared to crush the other nation militarily, economically and psychologically. 2. It is generally inimical to our nation's historical values, unappreciated, counterproductive locally and on the world stage, and thus against our national interest to do #1 (crush other nations to the extent required) in order to impose our sense of freedom (a republic, with a bill of rights). (Recall the inadvertent hyperbole from a U.S. officer in Vietnam: "To save the village, we had to destroy it"). 3. If the invaded nation's culture didn't support freedom before we invaded and destroyed its government, it isn't likely to keep what we would call freedom once we leave; 4. Not leaving nations we defeat in war is not a viable option (see Rome; Washington's Farewell address, etc.); 5. Declining to spill the blood and deplete the wealth of U.S. citizens to right the wrongs of the world in no way prevents our identifying totalitarian or authoritarian scum and targeting them as needed for retribution and deterrence, but without remaking their nations' legal systems at the point of our armed forces. Note that none of these criticisms imply any position at all in the debate over good will vs. ulterior motives for the U.S. in Iraq. For that matter, good will and ulterior motives readily co-exist. We can want freedom for Iraquis and also stability and non-hostility in a very importantly positioned oil-producing nation. The issue for me regarding Bush isn't his genuineness in wanting to take Saddam's boot off Iraquis, but what I take to be his lack of sound, long-range, thinking that appropriately identifies our national interest in the world as it is now and foreseeably will be. Note that this has nothing to do with alienating the pathetic lackeys in the United Nations, who will always excuse the inexcusable. It has more to do with alienating Iraquis and other Arabs or Muslims who might otherwise have looked to us as a model for emulation in liberalizing their nations.