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: neolib who wrote (153739)	12/9/2004 10:53:09 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

To bail before the elections makes no sense to me at all. And to continue to be attacked by folks like Ed and GST on moral grounds is deeply disturbing. What you said is what i believe and you said it far better than i have been able to. I just hope we dont get caught in a trap and keep extending the time frames for changing policy or our own view. Thats what i remember happening in vietnam. Wait for falujah. Wait for the elections. Wait for the new govt to get its feet wet. Wait, wait, wait. Thats what we have been doing since we won the damn iraq war in the beginning. Also its the same faces like rummy that get very old. He is looking more and more like this gens macnamara. I hope it doesnt go that way. I hope we succeed but at some point we need a govt that fesses up and/or changes course. I get the feeling sometimes that these guys live in too insular a condition. Mike

To: neolib who wrote (153739)	12/9/2004 11:07:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If the Iraqis really do see democracy and majority rule as "alien" to their race or religion then the Iraqi project definitely won't work. But there is little evidence of this at present. The insurgency to date is at its core Ba'athist, with a strong Wahabbi element; neither of these programs has widespread appeal in Iraq. Even most Sunnis have to be thinking to themselves: "We are only 20% of the population. Do we really want to start a civil war here? In short, the insurgents only speak for a rather small minority. From the reports that came out of Fallujah, they spoke for a minority even inside Fallujah; otherwise they wouldn't have had to kill so many people in Fallujah to impose themselves on the citizens. Note that the Shia just put forth a unity platform for the election, and the major Sunni parties have also registered, attempts at boycott and delay having failed. The elections are going to happen. The rest of Arab world is divided; most just hate the Americans, but questiona are starting to be asked, "Hey! How come it takes an occupation for Arabs to hold a real election?"

To: neolib who wrote (153739)	12/10/2004 5:03:48 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<We are not an evil nation.> I am sorry to have to challenge that viewpoint -- we have killed countless tens of thousands of innnocent people without justification, and we have turned a country that was in bad shape into a lawless wasteland. We must be responsible for the consequences of our actions -- what we did to Iraq was indeed "evil".

To: neolib who wrote (153739)	12/11/2004 4:35:49 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

NEWS: U.S. soldiers take complaints to new level __________________________________ Critics of Iraq war see breakdown of troop morale The Associated Press Updated: 4:54 p.m. ET Dec. 10, 2004 msnbc.msn.com WASHINGTON - Soldiers always gripe. But confronting the defense secretary, filing a lawsuit over extended tours and refusing to go on a mission because it’s too dangerous elevate complaining to a new level. It also could mean a deeper problem for the Pentagon: a lessening of faith in the Iraq mission and in a volunteer army that soldiers can’t leave. The hubbub over an exchange between Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and soldiers in Kuwait has given fresh ammunition to critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. It also highlighted growing morale and motivation problems in the 21-month-old war that even some administration supporters say must be addressed to get off a slippery slope that could eventually lead to breakdowns reminiscent of the Vietnam War. Tip of the iceberg? For thousands of years, soldiers have grumbled about everything from their commanders to their equipment to shelter and food. But challenging a defense secretary to his face is rare. So is suing the military to keep from being sent back to a combat zone. “We are seeing some unprecedented things. The real fear is that these could be tips of a larger iceberg,” said P.J. Crowley, a retired colonel who served as a Pentagon spokesman in both Republican and Democratic administrations and was a White House national security aide in the Clinton administration. “The real issue is not any one of these things individually. It’s what the broader impact will be on our re-enlistment rates and our retention,” Crowley said. Several Iraq-bound soldiers confronted Rumsfeld on Wednesday at a base in Kuwait about a lack of armor for their Humvees and other vehicles, about second-hand equipment and about a policy keeping many in Iraq far beyond enlistment contracts. Their pointed questions were cheered by others in the group. The episode — the questions and Rumsfeld’s testy responses were captured by television cameras and widely reported — did not raise new issues. Complaints about inadequate protection against insurgents’ roadside bombs and forced duty extensions have been sounded for months. But not so vividly. Assurances from the president President Bush and Rumsfeld offered assurances that the issues of armor and equipment were being dealt with, and that the plainspoken expression of concerns by soldiers was welcome. “I’d want to ask the defense secretary the same question,” Bush said, if the president were a soldier in overseas combat. “They deserve the best,” he added. The display of brazenness in Kuwait came just two days after eight U.S. soldiers in Kuwait and Iraq filed a lawsuit challenging the military’s “stop loss” policy, which allows the extension of active-duty deployments during times of war or national emergencies. In October, up to 19 Army reservists from a unit based in South Carolina refused orders to drive unarmored trucks on a fuel supply mission along attack-prone roads near Baghdad, contending it was too dangerous. The Pentagon is still investigating the incident. Force structure in question “Tensions obviously are rising,” said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. “The fact is that you do need now to consider how to change the force structure: the role of the reserves, the role of the actives. Troops are being deployed in continuing combat under what are often high risk conditions for far longer periods than anyone had previously considered or planned for.” When the war began in March 2003, the troops were predominantly active duty military. Today, National Guard and Army Reserve units make up about 40 percent of the force. The growing restiveness of U.S. troops in the Middle East echoes a drop in optimism at home that a stable, democratic government can be established in Iraq. A new poll for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs shows that 47 percent of Americans now think it’s likely Iraq can establish such a government, down from 55 percent in April. White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said that Bush “is committed to making sure our troops have the best equipment and all the resources they need to do their jobs. And that’s exactly what he expects to happen.”