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 (129143)	4/13/2004 5:33:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Halliburton had 6 more employees lost (this time apparently by kidnapping) to the rebels, and have consequently suspended some convoys from running. I would guess that this would put a dent into our ability to carry on offensive operations, but maybe not. If it endures, it certainly will. But I believe this is a short-term halt, aimed at giving the company, and the CPA, time to improve security measures. Your judgement on Iraq, and various other parts of our foreign affairs has already been impeached multiple times. While your contention that we should unilaterally withdraw from Iraq immediately isn't nearly treasonous? What about your deliberate ignoring of the evidence that Islamic militancy throughout the region rose, not after US and coalition forces invaded Iraq, but after Bin Laden succeeded in attacking the US homeland? What about your ridiculous concept of "business interests" being the primary strategy for creating change in the region when it's in every militants interest to utterly oppose and confront such strategies?? Hey, if you'd been right about all those WMDs that Iraq had, or the ideas about getting the Arab states to send in troops, The whole world was wrong about Iraq's WMD stockpiles, not just the US. But we were NOT WRONG about the belief that Saddam was surreptiously continuing his WMD R&D. David Kay proved that. As for Arab troops, it's understandable why the Saudis would not participate, or why we might be leery of inviting them in. After all, the wave of militancy throughout the region has been funded by Saudi clerics and wealthy royal family members. We are mutually suspicious of one another's intentions. Besides, the Saudis don't want to see democractic reform in Iraq, and they especially don't want to see a Hashemite constitutional monarcy. Both would put tremendous pressure upon them to conduct their own political restructuring. And 1/2 of Saudi Arabia is Shiite. But I should would like some Egyptian, Jordanian, and Kuwaiti presence. And maybe we'll yet see that. t was the neocon plan to get us into a war in Iraq that would require a return to the draft, then they can blame themselves for not informing the US public about this before we went in. Maybe they'd have been listened to, though I doubt it. I don't foresee this. But I'm not adverse to mandatory service for all men and women. I've discussed this previously. And it doesn't necessarily require military service. But go back and look at the arguments before the war. People like me and Shinseki were saying that Iraq would require 20 soldiers per 1000 Iraqis as an occupation force, at least. I recall Shinseki saying this, but not you. Please share with us where and how you independently came up with these numbers. And while you're reading, why not check out a few Blogs written by Iraqis living amidst the overthrow of Saddam. They don't seem to share your perspective: messopotamian.blogspot.com iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com iraqthemodel.blogspot.com Hawk