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 (145796)	9/16/2004 4:03:23 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"Why not simply respond to the rationale of such critics rather than resort to labeling them as somehow emotionally unable to respond to the issues of the moment until monday morning?" I did not say 'all critics' or all those who draw comparisons. I was careful to distinguish the apologists who are less than rational about it and who have make their apologies in the context of regrets over Viet Nam. I have further distinguished this sub-group as persons who were late or some sort of convert to anti-Viet Nam warism. They do not understand the issues of this day any more than they did when they were ignorantly promoting war in Viet Nam for the wrong reasons ... same mistake thirty five years later but they can't see it because they have taken an opposite position. "...respond to the rationale of such critics... I have. "We've ignored the reality of the almost instinctive "hive" reaction from the people of one culture when the people of a distinctly different culture try to take contol." It is far more complicated than that. For instance, Saddam released all prisoners when he saw that his fall was immenant. The majority of these have found a roll as insurgents. The insurgents would be armed and marauding (against each other) with or with out us but since we (outsiders) are there, we have become the primary focus. "We've ignored the institutional and human nature reactions of those in our employ who attempt to justify their mistakes with lies, deceptions and red herrings and by so doing compound the problems while delaying a change of course." Nothing is being ignored. Even if some try to justify their mistakes there are major efforts to determine accountability. We find the mistakes and act to remedy them, on an on going basis. "And we've ignored the very real enormity of the injury, deaths and damage that we cause as a natural consequence of our actions." Who is this we you keep talking about? I don't see any of this being ignored. "The Iraqis will remember and revenge themselves for generations." The Iraqis are vengeful as a steriotype. However, they don't carry grudges as long as you seem to think. They can also be quick to forgive when they see things working out for the better. They are more likely to focus their vengeful natures on more immediate problems over the next few years, than on our grandchildren.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (145796)	9/17/2004 12:36:19 AM
From: Bruce L	Respond to of 281500

Ed, Re: THE PROPENSITY FOR REVENGE AND JIHAD Didn't we agree to have a debate on the character of the Iraqi "People" as it relates to revenge and jihad? On 8/22/04 I had written: <<Bluntly, you have a romantic, "Frank Herbert" type vision of a courageous Iraqi people, united in a jihad against the United States. You speak of a "hive" that has been riled, of people "who bleed and sweat their lives away," of Bush's disdain for the "power and pride" of the average Iraqi people. You stated that if a Fatwa were issued tomorrow to kill Americans and force them from Iraq: "I believe it would be a bloodbath and the number of Shiites that would take up arms would be remarkable." I believe, Ed, that this is crap; that this is one of those "emotional ideas" that enslave you.>> Message 20436502 I wrote a piece on 8/30/04 to the effect that a people as abused as the Iraqis could never act as you suggest . Message 20463837 You thereafter stated 4 -5 times that you would post a reply. But you still haven't. Now you claim that the Iraqis have a revengeful nature -quite different from the Vietnamese -and will nurture a hatred of Americans that will last for generations. Why isn't this also a figment of your romantic imagination? Bruce

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (145796)	9/17/2004 9:19:24 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Some folks think we should get out of Iraq -- sooner rather than later ______________________ Kerry Needs the Courage to Walk Away from Iraq by Howard Zinn Published on Thursday, September 16, 2004 by the Miami Herald If John Kerry wants to win, he must recognize that our military intervention in Iraq is a disaster -- for Americans, for Iraqis, for the world. He must stop boasting about his courage in Vietnam and instead start talking about his moral courage in opposing that war. He needs to stop saying, as he did recently in the Midwest, that he defended this country when he was fighting in Vietnam. That is not an honest statement. If it were true, then he would not have turned against the war. He was not defending this country when he fought in Vietnam. He was defending this country when he said that we were wrong to be in Vietnam and we should get out. He should not be saying that he will wage the Iraq War better, that he will replace U.S. troops with soldiers from other countries. If it is immoral for our soldiers to be occupying Iraq and killing Iraqis every day, then it is immoral for foreign soldiers to do the same. He should be clear: We are not defending our country by our war in Iraq, and we should get out. He should stop saying what President Bush is saying, that we have to ''stay the course.'' We stayed the course in Vietnam and it cost more than 58,000 American lives and untold Vietnamese lives. To those who say that we must not ''cut and run,'' Kerry can say, with some authority: We did cut and run in Vietnam, and it was the right thing to do. Kerry needs to stop talking about how he will be stronger than Bush and how he will do more for our national security. He should stop accepting the traditional definitions of strength and security. He should say that strength should not be measured in military terms, but in moral terms. Did the possession of almost 10,000 nuclear weapons prevent Sept. 11? Will a $400 billion military budget make us stronger or weaker? Will our military actions diminish terrorism or increase it? Does not our strength lie in being an example to the world of a peace-loving nation, which uses its wealth not for bombs but for food and medicine, for our people and for others in need around the world? Should we not stop defining security in military terms, but talk instead of ''health security,'' ''job security,'' ``children's security''? This is not Utopian. It is what Americans have shown that they want, before they are made hysterical and fearful by government propaganda. It is not simply a moral program, but a winning program. William Lloyd Garrison, the great Massachusetts abolitionist, was urged by a friend to speak more cautiously. Garrison replied: ``Slavery, sir, will not be overthrown without excitement, a tremendous excitement.'' War and corporate thievery will not be overthrown without excitement, either. Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation. ________________________ Howard Zinn, who served as a bombardier in the Air Force in World War II, is author of the best-selling 'A People's History of the United States'. Copyright 1996-2004 Knight Ridder ### commondreams.org