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 (195620)	8/7/2006 1:25:26 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

The policies of the rightwing are not those of dissent and discussion. They are also not practical and realistic. If they were, we would not have gone into Iraq in the first place. The rightwing is ideological and marches in lockstep. The ideological side said to take down Saddam because people in power wanted to. The lockstep side said to not even discuss options because the people in power have ALL the power. In this authoritarian fantasy-world there is no way Iraq would have been a success. Authoritarians mow down everything in their path. They are relying on military power, killing and destruction to get their way. Remember Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy: SHOCK AND AWE. That's it. That was the entire extent of his strategy. Kill-kill-kill in order to subjugate. Now that it's a humongous failure, the rightwing is whining about assymetric warfare and how unfair the pipsqueaks tactics are. This is why the rightwing could never win this war because it's a battle of ideas. They could give lipservice to the 'hearts and minds' blather but everyone understands that the rightwing never meant anything of the kind. That kind of dishonesty breeds contempt which is what we see in the thousands of Sadrites marching in Baghdad in support of Hezbollah. Why would anyone go over to the side they view with contempt?