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: bentway who wrote (208478)	11/15/2006 10:15:04 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sorry Elroy, but just as Vietnam is today regarded as a MASSIVE foreign policy blunder of the Unitied States, the blame for which falls on the "deciders" of the time, LBJ and then Nixon, Iraq will be regarded the same way. We were talking about Iraq, not the US's contribution to the situation in Iraq. The US can leave Iraq any day, and whether Iraq is then a success or failure will be up the people of Iraq. Regime removal was a rapid, complete success in Iraq. The post-regime change activity has obviously not worked out. The eventual success or failure of the country depends on whoever stays there once the US leaves - they're the stakeholders, not the USA. I would say Vietnam today is an early stage success story - their economy has been improving tremendously since the adoption of capitalism by their government. What Vietnam would look like today if their had been zero US involvement from the mid-1950's on is anyone's guess - they might have turned out like Singapore or might have turned out like North Koea, I don't know...

To: bentway who wrote (208478)	11/15/2006 10:17:33 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The Republicans are trying to spin the meme that the Iraqis just don't seem to DESERVE or want democracy enough And you don't buy that idea? It seems obvious to me. Why can't the Iraqis police themselves after two years of occupation? Probably because they don't want to fight for a democratic nation made up of its current constituents, and their leaders (whoever they are) want personal power - not shared power. I wouldn't call that Republican spin - it seems obvious.