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: Sun Tzu who wrote (150055)	10/31/2004 1:24:54 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Sun Tzu: thanks for sharing those comments on The Art Of War...It's quite clear to many of us that we not had "a smart warrior" as a President...btw, here are some Early Election Results: From the Oxford University Americans Abroad Debate Society...Over in England last Thursday...Voting was on the question: "Should George Bush be retained as President?" Yea: 75 Nay: 277 * George Bush: "You're Fired!"**

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (150055)	10/31/2004 1:47:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000 gnn.tv This is now the lead story over at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo...fyi... talkingpointsmemo.com

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (150055)	10/31/2004 9:02:09 AM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

1. We had to weed out Saddam and whatever known terrorists remain in Iraq. Most people agree with removal of Saddam, though they suggest it was not essential. If he was harboring terrorists with plans to attack the US, then we had sufficient cause to remove these terrorists from Iraq too. Since he was known to have applied chemical weapons on minority populations in Iraq, he needed the boot. 2. The decisive vicotry against Saddam was a historical moment. The on going battles with pockets of resistance have been fought by the Iraqi government with the support of the US troops. I don't think the presence of more troops would have changed the attitude of foreign fighters in Fallujah. 3. I can't determine the general attitude of people within Iraq because the press does a terrible job on everything except for poll ratings and liberal rants against Bush. For all I know, a victory in Fallujah will wipe out most of the lingering resistance and let stability fall back into place. In any case, we are trying to deprive the terrorists from their right to live. Since we are not fighting the Iraqi people as the Democrats would lead us to believe, we must only consider what we must deprive the 5000 foriegn fighters in Fallujah. 4. I think we have applied every conceivable resourse to the conflict. In the end, it will be up the the Iraqi people to decide they will not accept the foreign Al Quaeda fighters from disturbing their communities. We can take them out, but they will multiply if the Iraqi people let them back in town. 5. Spies are good, but may be superflous given the state of technology. We know how many terrorists are holed in Fallujah. We know how to bomb them. We need spies to prevent the situation from rising again. I think information from spies needs to be handled in earlier stages. We cannot let terror cells become dangerous before they are removed. Wipe them out at the first sign of malignancy. 6. Cut losses early - I don't think the adage is relevant here. The US is going to maintain forces to support the Iraqi government for the indefinite future. This is an endurance battle. 7. Bush and Cheney are very adept at the practice of guile. Many of the opponents from the Democratic side have charged them with being decietful and dishonest. They have a difficult message to communicate. Sometimes, it is better to say nothing at all or to just sound stupid. 8. Why should there be an exit strategy? We have been planning to remove Saddam from office since the gulf war. Lots of planning and then a quick strike based upon Saddam's non compliance with UN Weapons inspectors. He also was developing training camps to teach terrorism. If anything, the Bush administration has been criticized for being too opportunistic. Now you want to trash him for being ill prepared. He should have gone in to remove Saddam, but he should have used more troops to prevent terrorists from killing so many Iraqi people and US troops. I think the whole clarification of the wot has been confused with the idea that the US is at war against Iraq. I believe that Iraq is responsilble for it's own safety. To meet that goal, the US military is helping the Iraqi police and army to remove foreign fighters from Al Quaeda that want to pollute the stability of Iraq. To keep blaming Bush for the extremely violent pattern of behavior by Al Quaeda fighters in Iraq is really unfortunate. However, I am beginning to see things in a much better light in this conflict between Iraqi military and foreign Al Quaeda fighters? I believe these fighters are the WMD that the US needs to contain and eliminate by whatever means of force is necessary.