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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7824)	12/20/2006 11:15:31 AM
From: DayTraderKidd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

You want to blame democrats? 30% of those polled want to stay in iraq. 70% want out within a year. When you hope on the talking point band wagon and stop thinking for yourself you open yourself up to being wrong. When you say democrats unilateral troop withdrawals has exacerbated violence, yet 70% of those polled want the unilateral troop withdrawels... That makes you wrong. You can blame anyone you want for voting for the war in iraq. You can blame hugo chavez if you want. I'm just going to live in reality. It was the repubs who said in july of 01 that saddam has not reconstituted his wmd programs, was not a regional threat. IT was the republicans who hooked up with chalibi. It was the republicans who held power in the white house, the house and senate. They were the ones who had access to and passed out the intel. It was the united stated government who voted to go to war based on intelligence provided to them by the bush administration. I think i'll tell you what I agree on. If you want to just tell me what I agree on, why don't you just post to me and then you can log on as me and type in the answer you want. Maybe you let people put thoughts into your head. I don't have that bad habit. iran surely supplies weapons, training and cash, to the shi'a. Saudi is pumping cash to the sunnis. And only the big guys knows how many other countries and individual groups in countries have a steak in this mess. But is iran and or syria the root cause of continuing violence??? NOPE. If they were the root cause, we allowed it to happen when they got voted into the government, on our buck. <<<What needs to happen, IMO, is that this government must be motivated to reconcile with Sunnis and Kurds, and be willing to share economic, as well as political, power.>>> I'm not goijng to pretend that voting for the iraqies means the same thing for them as it does to us here in the usa. You call that government anything you want. The shi'a were tied to iran before they were elected and they are tied to them now. If they had motivation to reconcile with the sunnis, that would have happened. The only way that is going to happen (AND LAST) is to let there culture evolve that way, and that takes a long time. Just because 20 million people had a purple finger for a day doesn't mean they got closer. I don't think we will ever see the talibanization of iraq simply because iran is not talibanized. Infact, the people of itan just voted and voted for progressive candidates.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7824)	12/22/2006 8:53:34 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 15987

the invasion was done by the republicans, and the war is being lost by same the dems, spinless as they were, said ok to the invasion, and, spinless as they are, now want to cut and run one side is simple for thinking that the invasion can achieve objectives of genuine worth the other side is simple to believe leaving now is possibly sustainable

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7824)	12/22/2006 9:52:14 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

You need to come to terms that our national (as well as global) interest is prevent Jihadist minded Islamic powers from gaining control in Iraq. It makes no sense to overthrow Saddam merely to permit the "Talibanization" of Iraq. It is not that complicated. Given where we are now: 1.) Iraqis are completely incapable of getting together to form a government that is capable of providing stability and security for its own people. 2.) George W. Bush has squandered American and Iraqi lives, nearly $2 trillion dollars, and US credibility to produce this mess in the ME. What is clearly needed is a benign dictator to come along with $1 trillion dollars to spend and put Iraq together giving them electricity, clean water, get oil revenue flowing, and distributing income equitably. Of course that is not going to happen. Given the current situation, the ISG proposal is the only alternative providing that we have an intelligent president that can appoint a James Baker type Secretary of State to execute the proposal. It is all in the execution. The ISG proposal can and will have to be tweaked to make it work. As long as we have George W. Bush as president the mess in the ME will continue. If we elect someone like McCain, Romney, or Guiliani in 2008 the mess in the ME will not get better. If we elect someone like Gore, Obama, Clinton, or Edwards we may have a chance.