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 (201533)	9/6/2006 7:33:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

You should have thought of this back when you were so gung ho for starting something that the American people would never stand to finish. Is that something particular to this war, or is that just the nature of American society?? It's not a secret that Americans, as a whole, like quick, "kick their butts and bring the boys home" wars. It wasn't the Democrats who gave aid and comfort to the other side. It was the idiots who got us into an unwinnable war who made it obvious to all how weak we are. That's just the point.. For people like you, EVERY WAR is unwinnable. That's your excuse for not being able to present a better strategy than the current admininstration is following. You don't even want to make the attempt!! Every human conflict has a solution, if all parties can be made to recognize some point of mutual benefit and compromise. And sometimes that point is arrived at voluntarily, via diplomacy, or it requires coercive measures. And weak? We're hardly weak.. We're just not willing to bring all of our resources to bear (like full mobilization and a draft) to fight this limited war. And for someone like you to make this claim indicates you fundamental perspective. Gosh, think we could scare Iran into not developing nuclear weapons now? I don't know.. maybe we should have considered that 18 years ago when they first started violating the NPT. It wasn't that long ago that you were crowing over Libya giving up the bomb and saying that the others would knuckle under soon. I don't recall saying that other's would "knuckle under soon". But I do believe that catching Libya red-handed and persuading them to renounce their nuclear program was a true victory. Do you think it was a defeat? I'm sure that Hitler could not have said it better in that bunker of his back in the spring of 1945. I'm sure that FDR was saying the same thing. And so was Churchill.. Leaders are supposed to say things like that, especially when setbacks occur. Would you prefer that your nation's leader say "We must be wishy-washy and chaotic"? Could have done this from 30,000 feet if we'd waited. Uh hello??!! Assassinate Saddam and then leave Iraq in far greater chaos that has already been experienced? Greeeaaaat strategy... Just what one would expect from someone like you... Again, wishing for something that we do not have the tools to provide. So are you saying that the formation and maturing of democracy within the US was merely a "wish"? Because prior to the American Revolution there was very little human experience with the concept of democracy. We made up the rules on the fly, and with considerable turmoil and internal strife. Every journey has to begin with a map and the individual taking the first step, and then following with the next... They US has provided the map to the Iraqis, and is even standing by to act as a guide. But it is up to them to take the necessary steps. I know you'd like to just "snap your fingers" and make democracy happen overnight.. (actually, I don't know if I should be so sure of your belief in democracy). I told you that Iraq had borders longer than Vietnam and that their people would be quite hostile to us, and that our country had enemies along those borders. I told you that they would snipe at us and sabotage oil production, and that our allies would abandon us (just like they did in Vietnam) as the cause slowly became more obviously hopeless. And how is this any different that Afghanistan? But were you against overthrowing the Taliban? Is there STILL insurgency in Afghanistan? I don't believe I've EVER stated that violence would ever completely cease in these countries. It would be fantastic if peace "broke out" all around the world.. but that's just not realistic. And that's not ever been my expectation in defining the term "victory". My idea of victory is the creation of a fledgling democratic state that can defend itself against Islamo-Fascist and secular enemies in the region (primarily Syria and Iran). My idea of victory is to maintain a forward defence of the United States that keeps the enemy focused on defending their "home turf", while continuing to thwart any plans to attack our own. My idea of victory is motivating Arabs to recognize that they are in a civil war with the militant extremists in their religion. I want muslims to have no choice but to recognize that Islamo-Fascists are just as willing to target muslims as they are Westerners and that we're not going to just left them remain indifferent. My idea of victory is denying the Islamo-Fascists the ability to tap the tremendous wealth of Iraq's oil to fund their Islamo-Fascist evangelical efforts. Those are my criteria for victory Bilow.. pretty much in order of priority. Now what are yours?? Oh.. that's right.. you don't believe we can ever be victorious against terrorism.. We're just supposed to bend over and take it.. Well, buddy.. you can have my ration of KY.. I'm sure you'll find a use for it. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (201533)	9/6/2006 10:09:22 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

"You should have thought of this back when you were so gung ho for starting something that the American people would never stand to finish. US support for remaining in Iraq has been steadily waning for 3 years." The chimp Caesar reminds me of an alcoholic friend of mine that would get into bar fights and expect whoever was with him to "back him up"! Sorry...

To: Bilow who wrote (201533)	9/6/2006 4:49:17 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

And now, after we have been beaten, "fair and square" on the battle field (i.e. by any means possible), you've got the guts to come back here and blame your loss on the civilians at home? I'm not sure anyone should really find this surprising since people of his "ilk" still blame American protesters against Vietnam for the loss there. Do you really think that if the Democrats hadn't made any comments that the American people would continue to follow the administration into this swamp? That a war could be bought and sold like laundry soap? That it's just a matter of getting together around the campfire and singing patriotic songs? Yeah, some of them actually think that, especially the Rovians of this country.

To: Bilow who wrote (201533)	9/10/2006 5:56:36 PM
From: GPS Info	Respond to of 281500

Carl, You post #201533, now with 10 recommendations including mine, was one of the best summations of the situation in Iraq that I’ve read over the last six months or so. I would like to take a somewhat different tack on the selling of the WOT, OBL, et al. Upfront, I’m glad that Saddam is in prison (headed for execution?) and that his sons are dead and gone. This is no small justice for all the victims of his tyranny, and for the families of the victims whose suffering going back decades. Ironically, it is also justice for Iranians who fought and die in another pointless war against this tyrant. I doubt, however, that they would allow themselves to see it that way. Every notion that I have tells me that without justice, the Iraqi nation will not survive as it is. IMO, the outcome with the highest probability is that Iraq will be functionally partitioned into three enclaves. Selling the war I’ve posted before that the only theory that made sense to me was that Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to transfer public wealth to private companies and provide US oil companies control over ME oil. Clearly, this could not be sold to the American public. The cover story for moving a large number of troops into the ME could be to remove the threat of WMD. Was it Paul Wolfowitz who suggested that we need (this) something to “hang our hats on?” The only way this might fail is if US inspectors concluded that Iraq had none. The chess move is to take the inspectors off of the board to make way for other moves. The next move is to sell that idea that there is a clear and present danger. I was recently watching the remake of the Manchurian Candidate with Denzel Washington. It’s hard not to think of the parallels with recent history. In both the new and old movie versions, a cabal wants to control the actions of an electable figurehead – who would not otherwise follow their orders without having extensive psychological conditioning. geode00 thinks that Republicans are incompetent, but I now see the genius of Cheney and Rumsfeld: they didn’t need to condition the mind of a scion from a political family; they only needed a vapid mind to direct toward a self-serving notion of being ‘historically significant.’ Also, before the last election when the Bush campaign suggested that John McCain could be a Manchurian candidate, they did this (first) so that Bush would not be labeled as such. Most likely, this tactic comes straight from Karl Rove: be first to paint the enemy with your own weaknesses. I’ve come to understand that GWB’s motivation is to be remembered by history, and little else. This is what Cheney & Rumsfeld gave to Bush Jr. Through this lens, everything GWB says and does makes sense to me. Now back on topic, when we find no WMD in Iraq, the sales job must quickly move on to “providing a stable democracy in Iraq.” Well heck, I’ll pay for a democracy in Iraq. How much? Will it be $50 billion or $500 billion, or $1.5 trillion? The sooner I know, the sooner I can start saving. With all this money gushing out of our treasury, the contractors and contributors are now flush with cash. They can now destabilize Iran and pay journalists and bloggers to write about the imminent threat from nuclear processing. I’ve posted before that Iran is the end game in this strategy. Getting US corporate control over the distribution of Iranian oil would be an all-out victory for the Bush team. They will retire with a wealth and a control over countries that only Bill Gates can dream of. My current interest is if the administration will wait to see if they can stabilize Iraq before bombing and/or invading Iran. The game clock is ticking away, and they may need to move sooner than they would like. Best regards