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 (195586)	8/7/2006 12:02:26 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I buy the idea that using Hawk's definition the USA has adopted an "extremist" policy on regime change -- yes. And I buy the idea that it has been a catastrophic failure. As for "low hanging fruit" -- if by that you mean Iraq was the easiest regime to topple and we had a fig leaf of a reason to invade --yes, I buy that. Invading and destroying a regime is the really easy part. The hard part is to make something good happen in its place. We have created one of the most dangerous failed states of all time in Iraq. And we have set forces in motion in the middle east that are extremely costly and damaging to our interests. We had choices -- we made bad choices -- very bad ones.

To: michael97123 who wrote (195586)	8/7/2006 1:11:08 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If iraq had been quickly transformed into something peaceful and prosperous it would have been and it also would have been a real warning to iran and NK that they would have had to take into account. If you had won the $200 million powerball, you would have $200 million before taxes. Your 'analysis' doesn't make any sense. If-if-if-if. If the SC hadn't put George W into office we would be working on global warming not looking at a 45% increase in the national debt and 2500 dead. Who knows, we may not even have had 911 or had a partial 911. If you're going to go with ifs, go with ones that had a chance of being real. Iraq is a failure because George is a failure and George is a failure because rightwing policies are failures.

To: michael97123 who wrote (195586)	8/7/2006 2:38:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraq was the low hanging fruit of the axis of evil which by the way i consider real. We skipped over NK and Iran and tried to set an example for them as to what would happen if they continued their evil ways. We dealt with Iraq because there were numerous outstanding, AND BINDING, UNSC resolutions slapped against it originating from Saddam's defeat in Desert Storm. We don't have similiar UNSC resolutions pending against NK or Iran (with the exception that NK is obligated to observe their own cease-fire/armistice with SK). I would like to confront NK and Iran.. (despite the cost that would be involved).. but we just don't have the mandate from the UNSC to do so. Funny thing is.. I heard a couple of pundits questioning WHY Bush was relying upon the UN to bring about a cease-fire in Lebanon. They asserted that the US should do more to unilaterally stop the fighting.. One day they are for supporting the UN and the other they are for the US acting unilaterally.. Btw, as I understand it, that "mission accomplished" sign on the Kittyhawk was placed there by the crew to celebrate their OWN mission being accomplished. Of course, Bush and his handlers probably thought it was a politically savvy thing to place Bush in front of it. However, Bush only stated that "major combat operations" had ended, but he warned that there would be a difficult path ahead. I certainly don't think anyone should have received the message that everything was hunky-dory at that moment. But I certainly agree that we took care of Iraq because we had the international mandate to do so. Furthermore, Iraq is the "keystone" to middle east power since it borders so many of the other problem states in the region (including Saudi Arabia and their Wahhabists). Hawk