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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (928)	5/25/2007 1:10:57 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 4152

Great post, Ed. Really great post.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (928)	5/25/2007 1:27:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4152

It's certainly not by occupying Iraq. That's the concept you just can't seem to get. Ah.. hum.. There is a government in Iraq, duly elected by 12 million Iraqis to represent them. That government has NOT requested that coalition forces leave Iraq. What "occupying" power would permit the country they are supposedly "occupying" to hold such power as to make such a request? Thus, by calling the Coalition presence in Iraq an "occupation", you're building your argument on a logically flawed foundation. Maybe that's a concept YOU "can't seem to get".. And Bush, just yesterday, reiterated that the moment the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we will pack our bags and go. And that is EXACTLY the very same belief that I hold to... If we're not wanted there by the elected government, then we cannot impose ourselves upon them. And it creates even more impetus for their government to organize and create the conditions where foreign forces are no longer necessary to protect the elected government. But one thing you can be sure of, the FOREIGN Al Qai'da fighters will not leave unless forced out, killed, or their recruiting base demoralized. I'll address some of your other points in my next post ... This topic was deserving of a separate response. Hawk

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (928)	5/25/2007 1:46:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4152

You talk about Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists to establish training camps when Iraq is currently the optimal live training camp for those who are learning, and have learned, how to overcome our best defenses and attack American soldiers. You act like if they're not fighting US troops they aren't being "trained". For one thing, I don't see any Al Qai'da forces manning tanks, or forming long columns of Toyota truck "personnel carriers" as they were when they were fighting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. THERE, they were learning the elements of organized mobile warfare, combined arms tactics, and how to fight in large formations. They were training THOUSANDS of people in these tactics and gaining COMBAT EXPERIENCE on a large scale. They even had a small air force, in which their followers would eventually have been trained to operate those jets. But now, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, with much of those forces destroyed, or decimated, they are back to fighing guerrilla wars and using terrorist tactics against innocent civilians in order to sustain their public "relevance" as a force for Jihad. Even though they have very little military power should we deal with them and oppose them in every way possible? Yes. Apparently every possible way, EXCEPT by helping 12 million people to defend the democratically elected government they chose. Most of us believe that given time and experience Muslim populations will reject the extremists, even those among them who now hold some idealized view of what life under extremists would be like. You see, for them as well as for us reality is a great teacher. And most of the Afghanis, as we saw in 2001-02 rejected the Taliban. We don't see a great clamoring for their return to power in Afghanistan. The problem was that the Taliban was more powerful than they were, wasn't it? After 30 years of civil war, fighting the Soviets, and inter-tribal conflict, the Taliban were able to rise to power and dominate everyone else as a result of their brutality. And I agree that, in Iraq, most Muslims will eventually reject the beliefs of the militants. And our purpose and goals in that country should be to assist the government in every way possible to foster that rejectionism and to unite as one nation. how about responding with a post telling us what it is that the war in Iraq has done to stop "them" from gaining credibility, training in the art of war, and gaining popularity among the populations of the middle east. I've posted comments and logical arguments related to this numerous times. In sum, by carrying the battle into the middle east, we've forced Al Qai'da to exert its resources to defending their home turf. When they are forced to apply their strategy of terror against fellow muslims, it can hardly be said that they are "winning hearts and minds" in the Arab world. In sum, the goal is to "motivate" the Muslim world to hate the Jihadist movement more than they hate us. That so long as there is active support for Jihadism, and especially Al Qai'da, the US will maintain a intrusive presence into the affairs of the Muslim world. And if Anbar province is any indication, the strategy seems to be working. Hawk

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (928)	5/25/2007 2:12:18 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Ed, That was one of the best posts ever. I have lost my patience with hawk over exactly the points you make. I could never undestand how smart folks can be so blind or so inconsiderate of the opinions of others. I dont know if you noticed but in yesterdays exchange i think hawk had us at war from 1946 to the present without respite. First with ruskys then with the chicoms in NK, right thru today. Americans are not prussians and we are not in our essesnce a military oriented people. We need to save up for the wars that really matter. Unfortunately there are to many of them too.