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: Hawkmoon who wrote (188325)	6/5/2006 1:18:03 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sure, you could have the Ba'thist back in power, where only the Shi'a and Kurds are brutalized Saddam oppressed plenty of Sunni too, it was just relatively better for them.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (188325)	6/5/2006 9:22:39 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's OUR FAULT that the Jihadist militants (both Salafist/Shi'a) are blowing up innocent civilians?? Bush opened up the gates of hell with his little experiment. The Jihadist militants weren't doing anything in Iraq before the experiment began. The invasion of Iraq gave the militants an opportunity they didn't have. Seems to me the fact that they are depending upon such EXTREME measures in order to prevent a democratic government from forming in Iraq is EVIDENCE that we're threatening their agenda. We are targets of opportunity. 130,000 sitting [or moving] ducks on the desert landscape. Jihadists don't need to "win" in Iraq; all they need is for the US to lose. What's the hurry? The US in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for the Jihadists. And we just keep on giving them recruiting material. Sure, you could have the Ba'thist back in power, where only the Shi'a and Kurds are brutalized.. But NO REMORSE on your part for what we permitted to be brought down upon THEM by permitting Saddam to remain in power in 1991... The Kurds have been effectively independent of Iraq since Desert Storm. And other than the US setting up the Shia to overthrow Saddam and getting the Shia slaughtered, Saddam has been comparitively mild to other dictators around the world. I have an analogy for the Shia. Great white hunter [US] with big gun goes to save the village [Shia] from the man-eating tiger [Saddam]. Great white hunter shoots and critically wounds [he thinks] the man-eating tiger. Rather than finish the tiger off. The great white hunter tells the village. "The tiger has been brutalizing your village for decades, it's only justice that you take your knives and clubs and finish the tiger off." Villagers, pick up knives and clubs and enter the cage to kill the man-eating tiger. The man-eating tiger isn't as wounded as the great White hunter thought and the man eating tiger proceeds to rip the villagers to shreds. Great white hunter watches through the bars of the cage and does nothing but watch. Oh well, it's not the great white hunter's fault. And no remorse on your part for permitting the Taliban to come to power in Afghanistan during the previous administration. Two ways to look at that item of history. We never should have gotten involved in Afghanistan to begin with. Using another people as your proxy to fight your enemy is morally reprehensible. We weren't trying to save the Afghans, we were trying to get at the Soviets without the US being the target. Afghanistan is another case in history where a people that goes through decades of war will more often than not, turn to something worse than they had to restore "order". As a bonus tidbit. The Reagan Administration produced material for the Afghans teaching them the goodness of Jihad. Against the Soviets of course. And OBL continued to use that educational material, kindly provided by the US taxpayers to teach the goodness of Jihad. Against the US, of course. I expect that we uphold our obligation to the new government. That wasn't the question you moron. "How much longer do you expect the US to "be tough"? How long do you expect the American people to buy into ~"It's a choice between cut and run and being tough"? How much longer do you expect the American people to listen to "We're making progress."?" The US will only uphold it's "obligation" as long as there is some marginal public support to do so. When support for the war erodes enough that a political candidate can't get elected on a "be tough" platform, the US "obligation" will be irrelevant. This particular foreign policy of building a democracy in Iraq doesn't have "time" on it's side. No individual opinion on SI makes a rat's ass difference. Not yours, not mine. Watch the polls, as the level of violence in Iraq continues, public support erodes. As a reminder. When the Taleban evaporated into the villages in Afghanistan, they left with a message. ~"You Americans have watches, we don't. When you lose the support of the American people, we'll be back." jttmab