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: Neocon who wrote (148485)	10/21/2004 9:38:04 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

NC, I was thinking about you last night and your lonely battle to defend the concept of our intervention in iraq and on that we do agree. But the problems associated with our policy including large policy failures by Bob MacNamara(rummy) & Co., contrary to the views of many of this thread, do NOT invalidate your central thesis that removing saddam was necessary. So neocons can be right but what neocons should not get bogged down in, is the defense of this administrations handling of iraq, its inablity to admit error and worst of all its inability to correct the situation to the satisfaction of the average american. Rummy should have been fired long ago. The job is far harder now to accomplish than it would have been after combat ended(g) and it requires a new team with some new ideas. It could be kerry, but it is better for this country if it is bush. Even at this late date a surprise announcement that X will take over at Defense on 1/20 if reelected could actually tip this election to bush. And rummys replacement needs to be a tough guy but one whose record indicates that things could have been handled better. Enter possible candidates John McCain and Chuck Hagel just to name two. Swing voters would feel quite happy about this and the bs about hurting the base by replacing someone who has failed with other folks who are actually tougher on iraq in terms of committment is just nonsense. Also lets forget about the loyalty nonsense as well. You cant be more loyal than bush has been to the existing team. The country comes first. What does kerry say if all of a sudden he is running against John McCain as future SD? Mike

To: Neocon who wrote (148485)	10/21/2004 1:47:54 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

After 9/11, it is reasonable that Bush should consider taking Saddam out directly. Why? Where is the hard evidence needed to justify this? There hasn't been any. Everything in their (lack of) planning suggests total overconfidence in the military plan. Everything in their (lack of) planning for post invasion occupation suggests total ignorance of the ground game. Reading declassified memos from past administrations reminds me that frequently the simple answer is the right one. Therefore - The most apt comparison is that Bush was looking to pick a fight with the weakling in the neighborhood (Iraq). - The simple explanation for wanting to invade Iraq? "Because we could". In my opinion, Bush got it wrong, had no justification to use as a decent pretext, and I have serious doubts that any grander vision he may have had (or Wolfowitz et al) will turn out well.