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: one_less who wrote (169938)	8/26/2005 6:14:50 PM
From: steve dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One can only allude to "political progress made", which is unwinding faster than a yoyo.

To: one_less who wrote (169938)	8/26/2005 6:25:49 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (10) \| Respond to of 281500

You sucked me in for one last post with your combination assertion that you've given me "facts" and your statement that: We are currently in the midst of the most tremendous effort to change the conditions of the world since WWII. The hardship we are suffering and the costs of our operations are a tremendous burden. We have only the very real threats and the responsibility to struggle for a better world to justify our continued struggle at this point.....It is useless to discuss realized benefits (gains) at this point." I'll give you some facts. A country (Iraq) which had just a handful of suspected terrorist within its nation prior to our invasion is now the hotbed for terrorists. Many of those "terrorists" had no involvement with terrorism before we invaded. Many of them are learning the trade of violent terrorism and the means of killing American troops in the training grounds of Iraq. We said we had to invade Iraq so it wouldn't "become" a haven for terrorists and now we say we must stay so it doesn't "remain" a haven for terrorists-what changed? Some more facts? We totally misunderstood and misjudged the religious fervor, politics and strong nationalistic strength of the Iraqis. We were wrong when we said that as a nation they would eagerly accept what we considered America's "help." We were wrong when we said that we could identify and destroy those who were opposing our great military power in Iraq. We were wrong when we said that insurgents would garner insufficient support in Iraq to wage an effective insurgency. We were wrong when we said things would "turn" when we handed over what we called sovereignty, when we captured Hussein, when we destroyed Fallujah, when they adopted an interim constitution, when they held elections, when they knew we meant business...the list goes on and on. We were wrong when we said that we could change their centuries old ways of intolerance and prejudice through force of arms and written documents that were largely dictated by our diplomats. Not enough facts? How about these? Almost 1900 [American men and women dead in Iraq.] Hundreds a month [insurgent attacks against Americans.] More than 200 BILLION [dollars spent in Iraq so far.] 0 [estimates officially provided for the dollars, lives, and years that "staying the course" might consume.] And then there's the little assumption built into "staying the course" that turned out to be fallacious for the Russians in Afghanistan, the French in the Sudan, the French in French Indonesia (Vietnam) and we Americans in S. Vietnam. The assumption that staying the course means winning. Thats an important lesson, i.e., that sometimes attempting to "stay the course" just means you're going to pay a higher price to discover that your power to dictate the lives of the people of another nation is very limited. But you don't want to go there even though the downward slope of American interests and prospects resulting from this war is very clear and the future is bleak. You seem to recognize this but you call it useless to discuss the "realized benefits (gains) at this moment." You justify this "don't evaluate now" approach by pointing to the ebbs and flows of the factions in our own civil war, but that's a copout. This is not a civil war that can be won with territory or the capture of cities. This is a war of competing ideas and the men and money we're squandering in Iraq are not winning us any ground in the war of ideas; not here at home, not in the rest of the world and, for damn sure, not in the middle east. Bad ideas are not killed with bullets, they're killed with better ideas and, or, failed social experiments. So go ahead and hope that things will "turn" and ignore the realities, but don't expect the American public to be silent much longer. They'll eventually wake up in spite of the tremendous public relations and propaganda efforts of those Republicans and Democratic leaders who voted for the war and when they do we'll stop sending our men and money to intervene in a civil war that we unleashed but can't control. Ed