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: jttmab who wrote (186006)	5/2/2006 12:42:58 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An uprising that was encourage by the US. And even though the US had control of the air space they just sat by and watched. Under what UNSC authority would the US have been permitted to support the Shia? Click back. You clearly stated that Clooney was asking for a US intervention. Clooney isn't, he's asking for a NATO intervention. Whoa!!! That sure makes me feel better!! I guess we must have exited NATO sometime over the past 1 1/2 that I was in Iraq. Thanks for the update!! Good thing all of our NATO allies have built all the requisite logistical (sealift and airlift) necessary to support this operation y'all are supporting. And I guess they can manage to send the 400,000 to 500,000 soldiers into the country that generals like Shinseki would recommend as necesary to end the civil war and maintain internal security in that country. After all, since Sudan has twice as many people as Iraq, and Shinseki recommended 250,000 US troops for the occupation and peace-keeping mission there, logically it follows that twice as many soldiers will be needed to accomplish the same task in Sudan. There is a huge difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Your comparison is trite. Only if you're too stupid, or blind, to see it. ROTFLOL. I find you so-called conservatives to be the most naive group around. You actually think there is a GWOT and you're going to win it. And you're all still in denial that we're even in a war with terrorists. In the liberal view, terrorists should just be treated like violent criminals and provided all of the rights of your average mugger, rather than the illegal combatants that they actually are. More than that, you believe that if we don't bother them, they'll leave us alone and be "kinder, gentler" little Jihadists who will eventually become peace loving "modernists". All they need is a little love and tenderness, and some kind-hearted "re-education". You flip from nation building can't be done to reshaping the middle-east into some sort of democracy. Oh.. I'll confess that there are many conservatives out there who have stated as such. But you see.. jttmab.. I'm a pragmatic realist, not a conservative. You just think I'm a conservative because you're too far to the left.. I guess it's the political equivalent of a ideological "red shift".. ;0) But when it comes to Hamas being elected, democracy isn't so good and you would rather have a corrupt and ineffective [Abbas] government because they just happen to say a few words that you like. Oh.. I'm obviously not particularly happy about it. But it was the choice of the Palestinian people, and the Abbas government and the post-Arafat Fatah cronies and their corruption that caused it. And, as we've seen, a bit of reality is finally starting to set in with the Palestinian people as a result of most of their external financial support being cut-off. Abbas has the authority to dissolve the Palestinian parliament at any time, but it will likely take a few more months before Hamas loses sufficient popular support to justify it. And corrupt as they are, we were a hell of lot closer to seeing peace between the Palestinians and Israelis than we currently are with Hamas in power. Maybe (knock on wood) some calmer attitudes and expectations will prevail amongst the Palestinians after they recognize that they simply are incapable of existing as a state without external financial support. On the one hand, Saddam might pass WMD to terrorists, so you have to invade. On the other hand, the US claims that Iran may have several thousand metric tons of chemical weapons and bulk agents and can produce 1,000 metric tons of agents per year and does nothing at all. What about the weaponized Sarin the CIA says Syria has. Not worried about Syria passing any of that to terrorists? I seem to recall that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and that it was this act that resulted in the numerous BINDING Chapter VII UNSC resolutions that provided the authority under which Iraq was required to dismantle it's WMD inventories. The last time I checked, we didn't YET see Syria, or Iran, be stupid to invade another country that would provide the casus belli to impose binding UNSC resolutions upon them (although Syria's occupation of Lebanon probably warranted such a UNSC resolution). But it's certainly in the world's interest to see any non-democratic/totalitarian regime made to dismantle their WMD inventories. Go through any of the lists of countries that have chemical and/or biological weapons and ask yourself why Bush doesn't care. And you think that Bush, if he could, wouldn't just snap his fingers and have the UNSC pass resolutions demanding that both Iran and Syria dismantle their WMD inventories? I believe that the US has been foremost in advancing such an agenda, but there are a few permanent members of the UNSC who have been less than cooperative in that arena. But I guess y'all think we should just go off and unilaterally have the US do it's "John Wayne" without any international involvement.. Anyway... I have to admit that I'm still chuckling over the irony that you're worried about being involved in a potential major civil war in Iraq, but are all ready to hop into the midst of a FULL FLEDGED CIVIL WAR in Sudan.. What's up with that jttmab? Why are you more concerned about getting into the middle of an existing civil war, than trying to prevent one in Iraq?? Hawk