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

To: Dayuhan who wrote (47244)	5/26/2004 10:35:09 PM
From: MrLucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

Insofaras the enduring democracy in Iraq goes, I wonder as well. This great country of ours is too hung up on the New York minute. Few voters know or remember anything about the lengthy duration of the changeover in governments in Japan and Germany. Our rush to get this done and the Iraqis inexperience with self-governing will be something to watch. No one said it will be easy. I hope it isn't significantly more difficult than currently anticipated by our decision-makers.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (47244)	5/27/2004 1:40:03 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793927

It would have been nice to have significant forces from other countries Steven...Seriously, we keep hearing things like this, but no one has credibly said WHAT forces, and from WHERE, and HOW MANY would be "significant" forces...? Does France even have any kind of major force? Does Germany? Spain sent in under 2000, and then pulled them out...changing their government nearly overnight. The terrorists seemed to sense they would do not much about the situation. What other countries have "MAJOR" forces....???? Other than 'peacekeeping'....and even then, it appears as if most of the world expects the US to do the heavy lifting, while they continue all their social benefits. Significant to me, would be forces numbering more than 20,000.....

To: Dayuhan who wrote (47244)	5/27/2004 9:32:21 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793927

Steven, That was a brilliant analysis. But to stay the course for a long time with less than a 50% chance of success is Vietnam redux. If we make that committment we should have a reasonable chance of success. The American people will not stand for the open ended committment you propose if it is know before hand that there is little light at the end out the tunnel. One further question to you however. If the US bows out, lets say in a year, after something in iraq is in place post-their election and the outcome is a type of civil war/strife, can that strife be limited to the Triangle? I think the Kurds can control their area in association with us and at least in the short run, Sistani with discreet help from the US and Iran can control the South. Is a tripartite solution, the end of the world? I dont think so if we get a democratic kurdish state (danger turkey???) and a shiaa non-extreme islamic state(danger iran backing shiaa extremists??). Before we jump your way, perhaps we should consider this as an alternative for Iraq. Mike PS "If nothing else, perhaps we will learn to consider whether we have the capacity and the will to chew and swallow what we propose to bite off, and to do this before biting, instead of after. That would be a small consolation, but it would be something." This was my mistake too. I made the mistake of buying into the competence of the team and the fact that they knew more than I. I made a similar mistake in early support of vietnam when i was comfortable with LBJ, McNamara and Rusk. It just seemed so logical in both cases that folks privy to so much info could not me that blind.