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: cnyndwllr who wrote (137876)	6/24/2004 7:36:03 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi cnyndwllr; Re: "The "getting out" could have been better accomplished by bringing in the U.N. early, allowing the world's nations more free access to the Iraqi markets, including reconstruction and oil, through the auspices of the U.N. and setting a one-year withdrawal date. This, combined with leaving the Iraqi military primarily intact and under the authority of U.N. management, could have been a way out with face." Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this fantasy version of how Kerry would have fought Iraq Better 'n Bush. First, the UN didn't want to go in. They wanted to continue sanctions. But suppose some silver tongued devil had convinced them to go in. As it was, the UN was a hated figure in much of Iraq for the support it gave the US and for sanctions against Iraq after the Kuwait war. With the UN heading an Iraqi occupation, the resistance would have been that much more pointed towards the UN, instead of the US. The result would have been that the Iraqis would have shot the crap out of the UN, and the UN might even have left before terrorists got around to car bombing their leader. Maybe the UN would have a bit longer of a honeymoon, but the basic problem is that it is impossible to pacify well armed well populated countries (with an army from a different ethnic group) when the defeated population has only been bloodlessly defeated in maneuver warfare (as opposed to being worn down by a bloody war) without having a bloody guerilla war. There are no historical examples otherwise, but history is rich with examples of this tendency. If we'd handed power over to an Arab army, things might have gone more gently, but that's not a cross cultural occupation. And again, the absence of an occupation would have meant either a civil war, or Saddam returning to power. -- Carl

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (137876)	6/24/2004 9:16:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake __________ Thursday, June 24, 2004 Posted: 3:26 PM EDT (1926 GMT) cnn.com WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday. Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June. Most poll respondents, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war. <MORE>