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: steve dietrich who wrote (183502)	3/14/2006 2:44:17 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The military should be used to fight wars and not nation build. Thats really been the problem all along. Our folks think that we can put highly trained, hair trigger soldiers in the middle of a civilian population that is not thrilled with their presence and somehow peace and nation building will break out. You need international peacekeeping forces for that--US always has a dog in any fight given our superpower status. You will probably think the next line funny but i think bosnia and serbia interventions gave false signals of what was to come. I can clearly remember Hackworth saying that americans would be coming home in body bags by the hundreds in serbia and he was dead wrong. Those of us who were against foreign interventions that didnt meet strict natinal interest standards had to review their premises. And then there was the easy Gulf War, where again folks predicted massive casualties but that was conventionl war and no nation building. So with the expectatinos of flowers we got sloppy and were ill prepared for the insurgency. But what really strikes me as funny is that some of the very same folks who were violently opposed to iraq in the first place are now for intervention in Darfur and retroactively for action in Ruanda.