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: unclewest who wrote (132421)	5/10/2004 9:27:52 AM
From: see clearly now	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are right in pointing out that the self censorship of the Media results in a skewed view of War. I live in Mexico and all the gory pictures were/are shown here...and the mood against Americans is showing up in the ordinary Mexican people....even the odd individual attack on American citizens for no apparent reason..ie: not robbery or sexual attacks... If you want to get a reading on the level of censorship in US Media and Government on many things go to the following Web page and look at its content with a open mind and no political agenda.. gregpalast.com./ Gradually the truth is revealed because of technology..first it was the Copy Machine(Nixons downfall) and now the Digital Camera (Rumsfelds downfall?)and of course the Internet and incredible discussions on threads like this one!

To: unclewest who wrote (132421)	5/10/2004 10:41:38 AM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

To complain about this and whine about that sounds too Kerry like. The fact is those who opposed the war were equally wrong about as many and as many important issues as you think the hawks were. Of course now they have conveniently discarded those old positions and only write opinions about "mistakes", whatever they are. The war did not go according to plan. It did not go according to the hawk plan and it did not go as prophesied by the left. First, to whine that the left were "equally wrong' is very simplistic and Bush like. The consequences of the Right-wings being wrong about Iraq are astronomically greater than those miscalculations attributed to the left. I remember those on the left wanting the inspections to continue, as they seemed to be working. That was proven correct, as not a single WMD has been found. That Iraq would erupt in civil war? Still a good possibility. That Saddam would be forced to use his WMD's? Well, that didn't happen because they didn't exist. The left being "wrong" would have left Saddam in power presiding over a weapon-less dictatorship. There are many of those in the world. The Right being wrong has resulted in a quagmire of Vietnam like proportions, with the rest of the world alienated from us and a probable increase in terrorists. Comparing apples and oranges. And as for why the public saw "little of the ugly" of war? Because the administration that you support tried to insure that no one saw "ugly images" by censoring the media. Can't have it both ways (also Bush-like). I look forward to your fair and balanced reply! :)

To: unclewest who wrote (132421)	5/10/2004 12:03:40 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Unclewest, as I read your post the two main points you're making are that those that criticized the war were wrong about some things, and that we should balance the ugliness of the abuse photos by showing some photos of the ugliness that results from the actions of the enemy. You can show all the pictures you want of the ugly results of the actions of the "bad guys," but that won't unring the bell when it comes to popping the "we don't do ugly things" bubble for a gullible and too-war-ready public. The twin tragedies of war are the terrible things done TO those who are caught up in them and the terrible things done BY those who are caught up in them. All the patriotic, gung ho talk about our "skilled, dedicated and noble troops" should be seen in that context. That's a good thing for those who really believe that war is truly a last resort. It's a bad thing for those that have a lesser standard and yet need the support of the U.S. public. Your other point to the effect that those who criticized the war weren't right about everything, proves nothing. Most war critics made an argument that could be viewed as a cost/benefit argument. Their stand was that the benefits did not justify the costs. Some were wrong in their over estimates of various costs of the war. Some were wrong in their under estimates of various benefits. ALL were right, however, in that the costs are turning out to far outweigh the benefits, especially when you consider that the benefits could, for the most part, have been secured without going to war. So ultimately the statement that the "war critics have been proven just as wrong as the administration because many of the disaster scenarios that they forecast for the war itself did not prove true...," is clearly incorrect. The greatest evidence of this can be seen in the changing voices of those few intellectuals who supported the invasion and occupation because they naively believed that we could somehow "recreate" the middle east. I include Thomas Friedman, Fareed Z. and George Will among them. They are now singing a totally different tune. Each of them has now moved to a position of criticizing the administration and verbalizing the "unthinkable" prospect that we WILL FAIL in Iraq in our latest, greatest, rationale of the goal of sowing the seeds of middle eastern democracy. Dreams are fine, but when the dreams run head on into the harsh realities of pragmatism, the dreams will necessarily change or the dreamer will necessarily fail. Those who favored the war in Iraq were foolishly optimistic and unschooled in the realities of the region. They were also unschooled in the human nature of everyday people around the world who will ALWAYS fight to the death to protect their hive from foreign interference. The administration is staffed with people who have repeatedly shown bad judgement, and to say that those who opposed their bad policies weren't right about everything doesn't excuse that incompetence. There are but two series of questions which remain to be answered. First, how we will get out and what claim of success we will advance to justify our leaving? Second, what will we hear as an excuse from those chickenhawks who got us in the war and from those chickenhawks who will follow them? On the second question I suppose we'll hear how the Ted Kennedy's of the world sapped the will of America and "played into the hands of the insurgents." Then we'll hear about how we "could have won" if only our hands hadn't been tied and our brave soldiers had been allowed to fight. Now where have we heard that before?

To: unclewest who wrote (132421)	5/10/2004 12:23:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

War is ugly,...but I now reluctantly think we need to think about Rumsfeld's exit. The core of the problem, IMO, is the fact that there were simply not enough troops present at the conclusion of the campaign, and this problem is one for which Rumsfeld is directly responsible since he is the one who pushed for lower troop levels. It's his baby. If more troops had been present, the insurgents would not have been as energized. Less active insurgents means less need for intelligence, leading to more humane treatment of prisoners. The next serious issues we're likely to see will relate to morale problems caused by lengthened stays. Troops with morale problems are a train wreck waiting to happen. Again, Rummie is directly responsible for this. We need to stop dithering around, and increase troop levels now before something else blows up as a result of understaffing. If ugliness captures the world's attention, let's give them some. Let's demand equal time be given to detailed photos of the dead bodies and body parts of those slaughtered by terrorists while this has been brewing. Let's post the photos we found of Saddam inspired sex abuse and torture of humans. Let's detail a photographer to provide daily photos of the murdered bodies of humans still being uncovered in mass graves everyday. You are absolutely right, and I think this thought leads to the one potential silver lining in the whole grotesque episode. Our legal processes will work, the parties responsible will be punished, no matter who they are. I hope this is seen by the Iraqis as a stark contrast to what business as usual dictates in the ME. I hope that the Iraqis will think that we are serious about accountability when they see the repercussions. We lost that prisoner abuse battle but we have a chance to win the post-war.

To: unclewest who wrote (132421)	5/10/2004 12:56:14 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Perspective has been lost. We need to get it back. If ugliness captures the world's attention, let's give them some. Let's demand equal time be given to detailed photos of the dead bodies and body parts of those slaughtered by terrorists while this has been brewing. Let's post the photos we found of Saddam inspired sex abuse and torture of humans. Let's detail a photographer to provide daily photos of the murdered bodies of humans still being uncovered in mass graves everyday. Indeed perspective has been lost. All we need to reflect upon is how many of these Islamist militants have treated those who have opposed them. The assasinations of political and religious leaders who have chosen moderation and democratic reforms... And where was the media in splashing photos of children burning alive in a schoolbus in Basra? I will definitely agree that we need to do FAR BETTER in getting our story out.. We need to get those stories that the US media, or many people on this thread, don't find important. We need to slap them in the face with the reality that is war... And we need to remind everyone (like CanyonDweller) that just because some soldiers have committed such abuses, that it does not represent the overall force of US servicemembers operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we CAN say, in general, that such abuses ARE the stock and trade of the Islamist militants and Baathist insurgents we're fighting. And we need to grasp the reality that we're on a clear path to a global confrontation with Islamist militancy within the next 5-10 years as millions of young muslims come to adulthood and actualize on what they've been taught as children. On another point, I would like to get your input (since I find your opinion one of most credible on this thread) related to what I perceive is a need to revamp the DOD force structure so there there is more of a bias towards Army manpower requirements. It's clear to me that we have two choices available to us (and both may be required). It is clear that we need to expand our Army manpower pool since a good part of this "war on terror" is going to be a ground action. This manpower adjustment can come from adjusting current inter-service active duty slots from other services and transferred to the Army.. Or it can come from a general expansion of total slots that the Army is allocated. My view is that Army requires at least 100,000 more slots available, with major emphasis on Combat Arms. We may find that both choices are required. But from my perspective we need more "trigger-pullers" if we're going to sustain this operational tempo. And we need to give them higher bonuses for taking the primary risks in this war. Here's a chart from 2003 that discusses the current AD manpower allocations: web1.whs.osd.mil Hawk