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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (187142)	4/28/2004 12:09:35 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586777

What makes you think that I don't have an open mind? Your response to those who disagree and don't hate Bush. You're simplifying.......its more than just closing off to those people don't hate Bush. I don't have an open mind when it comes to THOSE who defend the actions of this president; actions which, in some instances, are decidedly unpresidential. Frankly, I think its bad politics to lead a democracy into war and not have it well thought out. I don't think any war beyond the most trivial was well thought out if be well thought out you mean 1 - Planned in detail. 2 - Something very close to the detailed plan was implemented and 3 - Everything went off smoothly without much need to improvise or re-plan. Its called war planning...........what you plan to do before, during and after the war. Even Republicans concede that beyond shock and awe, war plans were pretty flimsy. Even in situations where you know exactly who the enemy is and you have a pretty good idea of their location, you still have a lot of uncertainty because they are intelligent creatures who react in unpredictable ways to your operations. In a place like Iraq, once we pretty much eliminated Saddam's armies the residual enemies are more nebulous. New enemies can join up, wile others are killed, captured, or stop fighting. The enemies can blend in with the civilian population. A detailed plan for dealing with them would not have been possible before the invasion. I do agree with you that looking back now there are some things that could have been done better, mistakes where maid, but mistakes have always been made in war and presumably always will be. Just two examples of what I mean.............Fallujah was known as a problem nearly a year ago. Nothing was done. Generals up the wazoo have been calling for more troops since before the war started. Only now are they upping the numbers. The list is long.............the war has been poorly done and its costing us a fortune. I want out........NOW! ted

To: TimF who wrote (187142)	4/28/2004 12:19:21 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1586777

<font color=brown>From the Financial Times.........not exactly a liberal stalwart!<font color=black> *************************************************** Blair should listen to the experts Published: April 28 2004 5:00 \| Last Updated: April 28 2004 5:00 In possibly the most stinging rebuke ever to a British government by its foreign policy establishment, 52 former ambassadors and international officials have written to Tony Blair telling him he is damaging UK (and western) interests by backing George W. Bush's misguided policies in the Middle East. It would be comforting to imagine that their comments will be heeded. The signatories to the letter include many distinguished and experienced public servants. They extend beyond the "usual suspects" of well-known Arabists, and there is every indication that many more serving and retired diplomats, as well as army officers, harbour the same misgivings. In any case, the notion that so-called Arabists - expert in the language, culture and politics of Arab countries - should be excluded from policy because of their alleged predilection to "go native" should be discredited by the way the Pentagon, which shut out anyone with actual knowledge of Iraq, has serially bungled the occupation. The organisers of this most undiplomatic démarche are, moreover, Atlanticists. Yet, in essence, what they are telling Mr Blair is: if you really have influence with the Bush administration, now is the time to use it. If that proves "unacceptable or unwelcome" in Washington, they write, "there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure". The diplomats were shocked into action not just by gathering signs of implosion in Iraq but by US backing for the decision of Ariel Sharon, Israeli prime minister, to keep most Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank - and Mr Blair's endorsement of this "one-sided and illegal" new policy. Downing Street insists it has not abandoned the principle of a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine and the internationally underwritten "roadmap" to it. But Mr Sharon's strategy tramples on several United Nations Security Council resolutions, and Washington and London's support for it has inflamed Arab opinion to the point where it sees Palestine and Iraq as two fronts in a war of resistance against the west - the optimal outcome for the fanatics who follow Osama bin Laden. In Iraq itself, the letter says, the indiscriminate use of force and heavy weapons "have built up rather than isolated the opposition", while there "was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement". The critique is trenchant and almost wholly accurate. Detractors say the diplomats propose no alternative. But the problem is that the mishandling of Iraq (and Israel-Palestine) has gradually closed off any plausible path forward. What this letter warns is that this is an accelerating downward spiral with no brake - and that Britain's duty as an ally is to use such influence as it has in Washington as "a matter of the highest urgency". Though the letter does not say it, it is hard to see how that meagre influence would not augment, were London to co-ordinate its position more closely with its European partners. news.ft.com