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: jttmab who wrote (164756)	6/25/2005 11:17:14 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Expensive Favor by Charley Reese ___________________________________ One question Americans should be asking the Bush administration is why it wishes to do such an expensive favor for the Iraqi people. I cannot think of any instance in which the federal government has been willing to spend $1 billion a week and 1,700 lives just to improve conditions in any one of the 50 states. Yet that is exactly what it is doing in Iraq, presumably for no other reason than to bring the blessings of liberty to a people we have bombed, starved, impoverished and vilified for 14 years. Naturally, the democracy bit is a fallback excuse after the original justification for launching a preemptive war was proven false. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear program. There were no ties to al-Qaeda. There was no threat to the United States, imminent or otherwise. These undisputed facts leave the American people with two choices. One, they can give President George Bush the benefit of the doubt and believe that he believed there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In that case, he is guilty of the most expensive blunder in the history of the United States. When such blunders are discovered, the normal course of events is to fire the people responsible. No such firings have occurred in the Bush administration. In fact, the Bush administration refuses to admit it made a mistake, however obvious the truth. The second choice is to conclude that the president deliberately misled the American people and was intent on attacking Iraq without regard for the facts. There is accumulating evidence that this is the case. As a recently unearthed British memorandum reveals, Bush had decided to go to war, and the facts were to be "fixed" to justify it. This explains the lack of firings. The intelligence bureaucrats didn't err; they did exactly what the Bush cabal instructed them to do: fix the facts to justify a war. Whichever it is – colossal blunder or deliberate deception – President Bush has gotten away with it. Neither the voters, the Congress nor the press has held him accountable. That leaves the present mess. We are now once again hearing the old rhetoric of the Vietnam War. "We can't cut and run"; "To pull out now would be a catastrophe"; etc. and so forth. This is a false argument. A planned withdrawal after the completion of the mission is not "cutting and running." No group – most of all the insurgents – believes it has the power to drive us out of Iraq. After the interim government drafts a constitution and elects a permanent government, there will be no justification for us to remain. If we do, we will be seen as propping up a phony government the Iraqi people don't support. Furthermore, we as outsiders cannot defeat an insurgency, because our very presence fuels its recruiting drives. Only the Iraqis can defeat the insurgency, and only after we have left. President Bush, in my opinion, doesn't intend to leave Iraq ever. He is looking for a permanent U.S. military presence in that country. The American people and the Congress, however, can force him to withdraw. If the people put enough pressure on Congress, the legislative branch can cut off the funds and thus force a U.S. withdrawal. Unfortunately, I fear that more Americans will die before the pressure builds to that point. Trying to create democracy at the point of a foreign bayonet was a fool's errand from the beginning. It can't be done. My guess is the Iraqis will eventually choose another strongman to give them what they most want, which is security, functioning utilities and jobs. What we have done with our invasion and error-riddled occupation is create the perfect conditions for a new dictator. In the meantime, the American people should be concerned that their federal government worries more about the Iraqis than it does the Americans. We could find far better uses for both the money and the lives than to squander them on the hard, bloody soil of the Middle East. Find this article at: antiwar.com

To: jttmab who wrote (164756)	6/25/2005 3:38:42 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush's message is also horrible garbled. We've 'won' in iraq how many times? - After major combat operations in Iraq have ended. - After knocking over the Saddam statue - After finding Saddam: from foxhole to Doritos addict - After handing over sovereignty - After demolishing Fallujah - After the elections In the future: - After catching or killing al-Zarqawi - After the Constitution is written - After the December elections - After what?

To: jttmab who wrote (164756)	6/25/2005 4:04:36 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush minions say there are two types of attackers in Iraq: 1. Saddamists 2. Jihadhists Hey, what about 3. Nationalists For that matter, what about 4. Criminals 5. Drug dealers 6. Outraged citizens ============= "...Iraq's security minister said he was in touch through intermediaries with some anti-American, nationalist rebels, urging them to come forward and negotiate and to break any links with those bent on holy war or restoring Saddam Hussein. "There are nationalists within the insurgency who are against the (US) occupation. We are urging them to show their faces and come to the table," Abdul Karim al-Enzi said. "We are not talking about the foreigners, Saddamists and religious radicals who think they have a divine right to label others heretics and sanction all sorts of killing."....http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15705930-38201,00.html