SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (43322)5/10/2004 4:27:35 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793721
 
Our cause initially was war against Al Qaeda. And then it was preventing Saddam from attacking us with WMD via Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But, apparently there were no WMD, and we were skunked by the Iraqis in exile. Chalabi, and his gang, who also assured us that once we got rid of Saddam, it would be easy to install democracy in Iraq.

Not just us, in fairness Chalabi skunked a lot of people, except for the Iraqis who knew him best.

If you want to argue that there are no moderate Muslims nor is there any hope nor even the remotest possibility that removing Saddam will lead to a total morphing of the Iraqi people into the necessart preconditions for democracy, you're preaching to the choir.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.



To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (43322)5/10/2004 4:40:57 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793721
 
Good post, bbm.

The issue, in my view, is whether the processes we brought to bear on Iraq merit reconsideration and whether different leaders might do a better job.

I have a lot of difficulty letting Rumsfeld off the hook for the understaffing which, in my view, is the source of most of the problems. Nothing was done when it became obvious that it was a problem. Perhaps we don't have the staffing we require.