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: Bilow who wrote (197902)	8/18/2006 3:12:10 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Why War? By Ross Levine huffingtonpost.com <<...It was 2002. Theater of the absurd - an endlessly debated run-up to war. We decided Iraq had WMDs and demanded it cough them up. When it didn't, the war became a done deal. Think about it -- the administration induced a national psychosis, and the doctors -- the U.S. Congress -- instead of helping guide the patient back to reality, wrote the prescription the administration wanted. By March 2003, the Bush bunch had somehow managed to reconfigure 9-11 into not simply the work of Al Qaeda but a catch-all assault perpetrated by all things terrorist (define as you will). With a little help from some fictitious uranium in Africa, and a U.S. still dazed from the attacks the previous fall, Bush went on TV and delivered his final ultimatum to Saddam. The shock and awe that followed will go down in the annals of military -- and political -- history: how not to make the world safer for democracy. Three-and-a half-years later, the same shape-shifters are running our country, and what has the no-end-in-sight Iraq war given us, besides a daily dose of death? A shocking and awesome national debt, an unprecedented degree of political polarization, and a Middle East about as peaceful as a ticked-off rhinoceros. Well, war is unpredictable. Indeed. Look at Iraq, look at Israel and Lebanon, and look for God's sake at history. To use war as an implement of foreign policy is tantamount to fighting an insect pest by introducing another insect to destroy it. There's no way to know if the second introduced insect will end up causing more harm than the first. To put it another way, war is a risky gamble. The South gambled on its ability to win a war of secession based on the fervency of its cause and the competence of its military leaders. It lost. The Third Reich gambled on its ability to win a war so fast that resistance would be futile. You could say cold weather in Russia in December was predictable but the Germans gambled on reaching Moscow before the snow. They lost. The American colonists gambled that England wouldn't have the stomach for a "guerilla war" in the American wilderness and guess what -- they won. The invasion of Iraq, in retrospect, was a huge gamble. The prediction was that if you topple an evil despot, the people would be so grateful that centuries of tribal conflict would give way to a state of gratitude-based harmony. That in turn would create an oasis of democracy in a desert of dictatorship. I don't know about you, but I would rather play roulette with the deed to my house than bet on the harmony between various Arab factions. The fact of the matter is, once you go to war, anything can happen -- too many random forces are put into play (just ask any soldier on the front). Once the WMDs were discovered to be a hoax, the justification for the war began to evolve from stopping the bellicose Saddam to spreading freedom to the very interesting "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." The last statement indicates that as the war spiraled out of our control, its planners began working up an explanation that it was a war of necessity as opposed to a "pre-emptive" assault thought of as more of an insurance policy. In the same way that you purchase insurance to protect yourself from the unpredictability of life, so the Bushies tried to sell us on the idea that by invading Iraq, we were taking out extra coverage on our interests in the Middle East -- peace and freedom, that is (I certainly won't mention the "o" word). Well, I would say things have not gone quite according to plan except that this statement presupposes there was a plan -- which there was not. There was a theory that many in high places apparently found compelling, but it was not based on the concrete steps necessary to realize it, but instead on wishful thinking -- wishful thinking and a humongous checkbook. Which brings us from unpredictability to money again. A never-ending cycle of human folly. As long as there is money to be made, political gain to be had, and a gambling urge to sate, homo sapiens will always keep war on the front burner. No matter how it turns out, somebody always profits -- financially, politically, perhaps emotionally. Maybe war is worth the price, the politics, the roll of the dice. After all, the alternative is nearly as utopian as a neo-con vision -- more money to spend on people instead of weapons, more cooperation in the halls of government, and a dull stability on the international scene. Sound dreary? Then grab your gun -- war is a lot of things, but it sure ain't dull...>>

To: Bilow who wrote (197902)	8/18/2006 10:14:02 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, I would like you to pursue your one war away from peace statement. What also puzzles me in what you write is how the arab side will accept peace given the change in the balance of power you write about. So i go back to the type of war that is next and the level of devastation on the arab side that is likely to bring them to the table as they dont have the weak demographics that israel has. One more question, Isnt the geography of lebanon somewhat unique in the area in allowing a guerilla force to dig in and conceal weaponry or is that offset by the fact folks can hide weapons in their homes and schools and be immune from israeli attacks. Needless to say you opened up a can of worms with your rather interesting opinions, so I am asking for you to clarify where you think we are going. mike

To: Bilow who wrote (197902)	8/18/2006 10:59:42 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You and I both know what kind of casualties a real "total war" would cause in the area. Is Israel really ready to take those kinds of casualties? Are they really ready to dish them out? If they are attacked again? Quite likely. Because they will perceive that they have their backs against the wall, as Iran's proxy force seizes control over Lebanon and we're not likely to see Ahmadinejad or Assad back off from increasing the pressure. If they perceive weakness on the part of Israel, then they are likely to continue to push the envelope until they evoke another response so they can, once again, proclaim themselves the victims of Israeli aggression. Think about how Hitler created the conditions for WWII. He pushed Czechoslovakia into giving up the Sudetenland, and then he just took the their entire country. He pushed Poland to give up their sole access to the Baltic sea, the port of Danzig, to the point where they orchestrated a fake attack by commandoes dressed in Polish uniforms so that they could "justify" invading Poland. There will be no peace or stability in the region so long as Islamo-Fascist aspirations of restoring the Caliphate are fulfilled. There certainly is not going to be peace. Don't delude yourself. The odds are that Olmert is going to be replaced with Netanyahu. I can feel the "winds of change" coming in Israel as they feel even more pressured by their enemies drawing closer. And Netanyahu is not someone to mess with, IMO. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (197902)	8/18/2006 11:26:57 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You and I both know what kind of casualties a real "total war" would cause in the area. Is Israel really ready to take those kinds of casualties? Are they really ready to dish them out? I think that the evidence suggests that the answers are no. And if the Israeli public isn't willing to fight a real war, the hell do you think that the American public is going to sign on to even an occupation of Iran? Remember that I never said that a US occupation of Iraq was impossible, I said that the butcher bill would be too high and the US public would never agree to it. That's also the problem for Israel. I don't see another choice, either Israel is willing to accept as many casualties as it takes, or they have to leave. Do you see another option that I don't, They may be bloodied by this adventure into lebanon, but the adventure simply proves that the war should not have been so picky. Fighting HIzbollah isn't possible, destroying Lebanon is. But I think the immediate war should be with Palestine, total no nonsense, kill as many palestinians as possible war. It will reduce overcrowding and perhaps settle things in palestine for a time. Then Syria should be next, a surprise attack that cripples their airports, and then slow but complete destruction of the entire infrastructure of the country, and then Lebanon, with the possibility of resupply from Iran cancelled first an air war, and this time demolish the ports, air strips and any way into the country and then a street by street hunt and kill campaign until every member they can find of Hizbollah is dead.