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: jlallen who wrote (149805)	10/29/2004 2:13:23 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So what? 1. Why did it take so long to find someone willing to come forward with a story, any story, to help diffuse the situation? 2. They can't even confirm what they took. This story is devoid of useful detail - its a fluff piece because of the heat that is directed at the Bush admin. 3. Rumsfeld, highly partisan, runs the military, in case you had not forgotten. 4. "Bunker after bunker" of explosives were seen by the Channel 5 embedded reporters and some of it filmed. There was no security. Those are facts backed up by both military commanders on the scene as well as the media who were there. That angle of the story has tons more weight than a press conference at the Pentagon, conveniently if not hurriedly arranged 4 days before election day. foxnews.com --- WASHINGTON — A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from his 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003. Explosives were part of the load taken by the team, but Major Austin Pearson was unable to say what percentage they accounted for. The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps explain what happened to 377 tons of high explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after the U.S.-led invasion.

To: jlallen who wrote (149805)	10/29/2004 2:54:51 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

A handful of observations: One of the things I have realized is that my attitude towards our current problems in Iraq differs very much on the basis of expectations. For example, I expected far more than a thousand fatalities before Iraq was pacified, and feared that the figure might reach 10 thousand, so, in my mind, we are still doing extremely well. Similarly, I knew that "mopping up" would take several months, and that it would take a couple of years before there was a truly stable security situation, although it is true, I underestimated that insurgent problem. Still, it not outside of what I figured in the high range end, and therefore is no shock to me. I certainly knew that the situation would attract terrorists, and therefore that we would have a problem with suicide attacks, and that has not been too much worse than I feared. In other words, I am not at all lying when I say that it is going pretty well, though I wish it had gone better. Others are holding the Administration to impossibly high standards, and when they are not met, declare defeat. The original situation with trying to befriend Hussein was the application of classic Realist principles. The idea was to ensure a balance of power in the region, by helping Iraq, which was inferior in population (about 20 million to about 70 million) to stand up against Iran. That way, there would be increased stability in the long run, as the two powers checked on another. Now, neoconservatives are being blamed for finding Realpolitick inadequate, and pinning their hopes on regional transformation, so that we do not have to cozy up to brutal dictators, but can act in greater accord with our principles. It is fatuous to chant the slogan "no blood for oil" when we have strategic interests in ensuring a steady supply in order to support our defense and the defense of our allies. Iraqi oil is not the goal, but part of the goal is securing the oil reserves of the Middle East, which were threatened by Saddam. I do not deny that Israel is part of the concern in toppling Saddam. I was sickened when we stood by and permitted genocide in Rwanda; I supported intervention in Kosovo, to prevent genocide there; and I advocated intervention in Bosnia against ethnic cleansing. Saddam not only supported the families of suicide bombers, but would likely have used WMDs on Israel eventually. We could not wait until he committed a second Holocaust. According to the criteria some on this thread lay out, we could never have fought the Revolutionary or Civil Wars; we probably were culpable for getting involved in WWI and WWII, by failing to preserve strict neutrality; and we should have sat back and allowed the Soviets to win strategic advantage over us in the Cold War. In general, if they really gave it much thought, they would negate most of the good the United States has done since its inception.