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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (136763)	6/15/2004 5:58:48 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 281500

<<Violations of the Powell Doctrine in the Iraq war:>> Daym, I need to read the paper. I didn't know Powell was the President and set policy.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (136763)	6/15/2004 7:57:18 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<1. Goals clearly defined: One year and more after the tanks rolled in, and we are all still arguing about why we went to war. WMD? Humanitarian? Terrorism? Oil? Democracy? Revenge? Israel?>>> Pick any one of the seven you chose- they are all valid and each one supported the argument that a regime change was needed. Including revenge for the war on Kuwait,for stealing their gold and art treasures, for burning the oil wells, for gassing the Kurds, for draining the marshes, and for sending Scuds to Israel. For paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for relentless pursuit of WMD's, for shooting at our surveillance airplanes, for murdering his own people along with some of his own relatives. A nasty fellow indeed. Sig

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (136763)	6/15/2004 8:37:08 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

CounterPunch???? Probably not as reliable source as FL would have suggested the header. Here's what they say about themselves...............>>> counterpunch.com "We've got all the right enemies." CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature. We're in our sixth year now and have exceptionally loyal readers, who have delighted in our irreverent and biting approach. Time and again they tell us they're sick of dull, predictable writing. They want fresh facts, a newsletter that they can enjoy rather than just endure--and we give it to them. Barbara Ehrenreich says, "CounterPunch makes me think. It makes me laugh. Above all it tells me things I didn't know." Here at CounterPunch we have many friends and all the right enemies. And, guaranteed, you'll never see any of us on the pundit line up at MSNBC. We try to stay beyond the pale. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Contributors Frank Bardacke Daniel Burton-Rose Andrew Cockburn Laura Flanders Annys Shinn Ken Silverstein JoAnn Wypijewski Counselor Ben Sonnenberg Design Deborah Thomas Business Manager Becky Grant CounterPunch CounterPunch PO Box 228 Petrolia, CA 95558 1-800-840-3683 counterpunch@counterpunch.org

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (136763)	6/16/2004 8:31:30 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

One year and more after the tanks rolled in, and we are all still arguing about why we went to war. WMD? Humanitarian? Terrorism? Oil? Democracy? Revenge? Israel? I know why it was in our interest to enforce UNSC resolutions against Iraq. It is people like yourself who apparently believe that binding UNSC resolutions are not worth enforcing. Or that it's in our interest to permit other nations to violate those UNSC sanctions by engaging in corrupt financial schemes (oil for food scandal) without facing exposure, let alone repercussions. And it's people like you who seem to believe that trying to foster democratic reforms and economic opportunity in the muslim world is not in our national interest. (Which Bush HAS clearly outlined, but woefully "undersold").. Bottom line Jacob.. There are clearly defined goals in place. Whether they are achievable is dependent upon how much we believe democratic values (with a mid-east "accent") are desired in the region, and our will to assist the people to achieve that. I haven't seen people like your clamoring for democracy in the region. In fact, it seems you all believe that muslims neither desire, nor are capable of democracy, as if they are some kind of sub-human species who are undeserving of the concept of political and economic freedom. As for exit strategy, Bush as clearly stated that US troops will leave in 2006. So I guess you'd all better re-elect him so you can hold him to his promise. If Kerry is elected, he'll be under no obligation to abide by Bush's promise. Bottom line, people like yourself have this fantasy running through your heads that pacifism in the face of violent extremism will win. Well, tell that to the Iraqi muslims who are suffering from car bombings and assassinations by OTHER MUSLIMS every day. Iraqis who just want to live in peace and recover the shattered remnants of lives spent under decades of repression. And then think about how you would respond if that were happening in the US? Bottom line, I wish people like yourself would spend your time preaching your pacifistic beliefs to the terrorists? Hawk