SI
SI
discoversearch

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: neolib who wrote (153670)12/8/2004 2:52:01 PM
From: michael97123  Respond to of 281500
 
Now that i saw. In any case post election and after a reevaluation, anything goes, perhaps including rumsfeld. Let him patrol in falujah if he wants to stop the violence.



To: neolib who wrote (153670)12/8/2004 4:03:13 PM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Neolib. With respect to how long this Administration will stay in Iraq, it should come as no surprise that they intend to "stay the course." What they've never made clear to me is what the "course" is and how long "staying the course" will be.

I still remember that following the initial "victory," Condoleezza Rice, when asked that question, made it clear that our involvement in Iraq was a "generational long" project. She and others in the Administration backed off that statement when it became clear that the Iraqis weren't rolling over and showing their bellies and that our troops would pay for everyday of our presence with their health and their lives.

I've never, ever, however, seen any statement of achievable objectives on our part which could reasonably be seen as doable over less than decades. If we saw that happen, I suspect we'd see some new, farther down the road, objectives suddenly appear.

I think we'll leave only when the American public gets tired of the deception, and that will be when more of us begin to FEEL the losses of health, life and loved ones that is occurring in Iraq. Ed