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: michael97123 who wrote (179315)	1/6/2006 1:03:29 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't understand this departure discussion and never have. Informed people should understand that the success of our operations in Iraq involve strategic and dynamic decision making as thresholds are crossed, as accomplishments are secured, as new information becomes available, and as circumstance changes. I understand that congressmen like to throw out commitment dates to get a political rally going but that isn't strategic reality. I have never been in a military role but it seems to me, in the real world, there is a need to reduce forces in certain types of operations and increase in others, to deploy to certain areas and to withdraw from others. The exception was VietNam, when we decided to throw in the towel. That was a devastating event and period in US history. The argument that we should depart from Iraq to save american soldiers lives does not make sense.

To: michael97123 who wrote (179315)	1/6/2006 1:51:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How long do we delay departure and thus cost american lives and treasure before the above doesnt happen---1 year, 5 years, 10 years?? I don't know.. I don't like to deal in timeframes.. I think we should deal in results. Now, granted, if we see the Iraqi government becomes increasingly more flagrant in their support of Iran, as well as dis-enfranchisement of the Sunnis, and/or Kurds, and they fail to respond to any public "admonishments" on our part, then we'll have to reassess our options. I'm not quite to the level of saying "a pox on both of your houses". Those 11 million people opting to exercise their right to vote indicates to me that there is hope. All the people need is a party that they believe can best represent their interests. We also have to fully weigh the risks and costs of permitting Iraq to launch into civil war. Can we guarantee that it won't spill over into a regional war that is even MORE economically disruptive and costly? Showing impatience is fine. It should be public and aimed at the Iraqi government, and the power elite in a manner that THEY are held responsible for the security of their country and for making political and economic progress (with our assistance, of course). But should we reach a point where all sides are displaying intransigence, THEN we should publicly start that our patience is wearing thin and that we're prepared to pull our forces out (basically p*ss on them all). But that is a hand that we should not play lightly, nor simply because we think everything should be hunky-dory by now. We must, IMO, continue to offer our support, while being prepared to depart the minute the Iraqi people, as a majority, tell us to go. Until such a time, we must "gut it out" and do our level best to avoid an unthinkable civil war that could expand into a regional war. And let's face facts.. A Sunni state, lacking economic resources is not going to solve the problem. Hawk