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 (179316)	1/6/2006 1:53:44 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The exception was VietNam, when we decided to throw in the towel. That was a devastating event and period in US history." Throwing in the towel beat another 20,000 dead with the same resulty. My point is that neolib sees little or no progress while hawk sees that progress. The american people cant be forced to support a war foreveve particularly without a draft or any sacrifice on the home front. If things are the same by 2008 the dems win on a peace platform. IF things are far better the reps win on the security issue. But in any case the war wont go longer than 08. Personally i think 2006 is the pivotal year--actually the next few months should tell the tale.

To: one_less who wrote (179316)	1/6/2006 8:39:49 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

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. It is not simply American lives. Its about trying to figure out what the stable long term solution is likely to be, than get there with the minimum destruction for all involved. I saw the termination of European colonialism across southern Africa. In retrospect it seems obvious that it would happen. But long wars were fought with significant loss of life and destruction to the economies. Could it have been done better? Same is true in many ways for Vietnam. The cutting and running at the end was our approach to a solution for us, not a solution for Vietnam. Many people still think that a modern multicultural democracy can be established in a united Iraq. I don't see it anymore. Once upon a time, Zimbabwe had a nice stable democracy with good law and order, and good economic performance. Happened also to be racial with 5% of the citizens effectively running the show. I seriously doubt Iraq will have anywhere near the safety and legal system that Rhodesia had. Something very worth fighting for. But it was also inevitable that black majority rule would come. The majority of whites in Rhodesia didn't accept this and fought a long insurgency to prevent it. In retrospect, if Rhodesia in 1965 had commenced on a path of equality, they might well have ended up with black rule but with a good government rather than Mugabe. I see something similar in Iraq. I don't think Shia, Sunni, and Kurd are going to stick together in the end, because there is very little reason for two of them to do so. If it is inevitable, cannot we do a better job by planning the process rather than reacting to it?