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: greenspirit who wrote (173845)	11/1/2005 2:43:53 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

my question to you and the ones who support your point of view is, who's team are you Ed? >/b> I believe Ed served in the military. He risked his life in the service of his country. I might have digressed here because I don't think you were questioning his patriotism. The reason why this country has succeeded over the past 200 years or so is because the framers of the Constitution designed a system of government that allowed pluralistic pov to live together in one country peacefully. That is why we have people here of every race, ethnic origin, and religious beliefs. The framers designed the system to treat all citizens equally and it made sure that the minority rights are protected from the majority. To suggest that 49.9% of the voters who did not vote for the winning candidate is not patriotic or on the wrong team, of course, is foolish. As you may know from investing, there are times when the majority of investors gets it wrong and places the bet on the losing side. And, as you may know from investing, there is something called a lagging indicator. When the information comes out, not all investors get the information and react to it at the same time so that the 49.9 percent minority can quickly turn to a vast majority in a relatively short period. Just because sentiment changes, we don't really want those to be caught on the wrong side to be killed off by those that gets it right. In other words, you may have been on the right side in the last election but as you know that means very little. Just as in investing, the important thing is to look to the future. To be on the right side of what is coming down the pike is really what is important.

To: greenspirit who wrote (173845)	11/1/2005 3:08:31 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (12) \| Respond to of 281500

"It was horrible how many people died and suffered in Vietnam, but I think the real regret many Americans have is it was seen as a waste. In other words, they died in vein, for no real purpose, goal or vision. In many ways, the mainstream liberal media and posters such as yourself are attempting to paint that same picture in Iraq. Vietnam's been a frigging nightmare for those who served in combat and for those who've mourned American soldier's deaths for decades. It's worse than that for Vietnamese people who often lost entire families, villages and generations. But the real regret is not that its "SEEN" as a waste, the real regret is that IT WAS A WASTE. What you don't seem to realize about either Vietnam or Iraq is that there are some things that are what they are. You can spin Vietnam all you want but the fact is that we were never going to win in Vietnam, the only question was how many would die before we quit trying to push that string of dead bodies. In Iraq the same political and nationalistic forces that made "victory" impossible in Vietnam are growing stronger with every Iraqi we kill. And the stronger those forces are, the more fearful and violent our soldiers will become. And the stronger those forces grow, the more violent our soldiers will become. It's a vicious cycle and once it reaches critical mass the only choices are to get out of the way and let the locals find their own path or make war on the entire population as we did in parts of Vietnam, only finish the job by killing them wholesale. Is that the kind of "help" you'd like to give them? And the question of continuing a war has NOTHING to do with honoring dead soldiers. It has everything to do with honoring the lives of those who'll become dead soldiers if we continue. How would you feel if you'd lost two of your four kids in Iraq? Would you feel that you needed to see your other two kids dead in order to "honor" the deaths of your first two? Or would you want to re-evaluate the doability of the mission and make a cost benefit analysis to determine whether it was worth the lives of your last two children? It's when it's other people's kids at risk that the "honor the dead" thing seems compelling. It's in no ones interest to see the United States walk away from Iraq with its tail between its legs like we did in Vietnam (except the terrorists). Really? It was in the U.S. interest to walk away from Vietnam with its tail between its legs and it is in our interest to walk away from Iraq with, or without, our tail between our legs. The sooner we get out the sooner the Iraqis, or maybe the various Iraqi factions, can fight out their differences and begin the evolution toward the governments of their choice. As with the Iranians, they might start with one form of governance and work their way toward another but whatever it is that they choose, or allow other Iraqis to choose for them, it's not our business. We, of all nations, should understand that truth. That's been the real tragedy of this war. Watching party politics take priority over the morale, lives and goals of our country and the free world. THAT'S been the real tragedy of this war???? Not he 2,000 plus Americans dead, the 300 or so billion dollars of scarce resources thrown down a dry hole, the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, the loss of American trust and prestige in the world, the tremendous increase in worldwide support for terrorists opposed to America, the enhanced training of terrorists in a real theatre of operations with real combat, or the bad face put on western democracy as a result of the aggression, corruption and torture associated with the war? Instead it's about party politics? And what are you talking about. I'm not a party loyalist. I'm not even a Democrat. Bilow is such a strong Republican that he VOTED FOR BUSH/CHENEY and read his last post to see how he views the war in Iraq. It's a convenient and comfortable out to say that opponents of the war in Iraq are party loyalists but the fact is that many thinking people oppose the war in Iraq regardless of their party affiliations. Here's a hint; stop telling yourself "he's only saying that because he hates my party" and start listening to what I'm saying. If you do that you may actually find yourself responding to what I say instead of why you think I say it. "It's in every free nations interests to see us and the free people of Iraq succeed and built a prosperous, free and democratic nation in the heart of the middle east. Yes it is, and the same with winning the war on poverty, the war on drugs and stopping droughts and hurricanes. So what? Don't confuse good purpose with good results. Know what is possible and what is not and then spend your efforts doing the doable. So, my question to you and the ones who support your point of view is, who's team are you Ed? Me? I'm on the smart team with real values. The one that thinks of 2,000 dead soldiers and doesn't see a number but instead sees one man with a family, dreams, courage and a future dead, and sees that 2,000 times over. The one that sees the war in Iraq as fueling the hatreds and passions of Muslims around the world, and justifiably so. And sees it getting worse if we don't get out. The one that understands that all of our vast economic and military power is incapable of remaking the middle east in our image. The one that understands that the faction we're backing in Iraq is using us and will likely be our enemy in the future while the faction we're fighting for them might have made a better ally. The one that understands the clear lessons of recent history and is appalled at the arrogance, ideological blindness and outright dim thinking of our current leadership. That's my team and it sure as hell isn't the Bush/Cheney team. Whose team are you on-the promote Al Queda team? Ed

To: greenspirit who wrote (173845)	11/1/2005 3:19:19 PM
From: wonk	Respond to of 281500

…It was horrible how many people died and suffered in Vietnam, but I think the real regret many Americans have is it was seen as a waste. In other words, they died in vein, [sic] for no real purpose, goal or vision. Of course. But then you fail to realize why we can’t ….bring their vision to a successful conclusion…. Put aside how we got here (Iraq) and I’ll ignore the arguments used to “sell” the war. Forget about “visions.” Think about the true objective of the American people. Was their (the American peoples’) objective to eliminate Saddam? – NO; Was their objective the elimination of WMD? – NO; Was their objective to foster Democracy in the Middle East? – NO; Was their objective to insure cheap and plentiful oil? – NO. Was their objective to improve Israel’s security situation? – NO. If the people’s objective was none of these what was it? Simply, the objective was to create more – not less - security for the citizens of the United States. We have failed in that objective and nothing we do now will permit us to achieve it. It’s increasingly clear that between two bad choices (stay or go) that the least harm will come from leaving. The U.S. got sucker punched on 9/11, Afghanistan was an appropriate response. As for Iraq, William Odom said it more eloquently (“…the greatest strategic disaster in the history of the US…”). Colloquially, Iraq is akin to pulling out a pistol for defense, and shooting oneself in the crotch. ww