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: michael97123 who wrote (2146)	7/9/2007 5:27:56 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4152

<I will not let you set policy based on who is suffering at some point in time.> Isnt that exactly what you are suggesting ? Hawk is saying that we need to set policy based on what the Islamic fundamentalists are showing us they are willing to do to accomplish their goals.

To: michael97123 who wrote (2146)	7/9/2007 5:47:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 4152

Michael, Here's the article that I was referring to previously.. I was correct. It was by Michael Yon (who I believe deserves a Pulitzer for his combat reporting). michaelyon-online.com Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth. Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways. Now.. to your response... I am only responsible for all the children because we invaded No.. we're responsible because Al Qai'da has COUNTER-INVADED. There's a difference. And as we're discovering recently, much of this difference revolves around aggression against Iraq by Iran's government. The overthrow of Saddam, controversial as it might be to some, was NO EXCUSE for Al Qai'da and it's associated groups to target Iraqi civilians. They aren't fighting for "liberation from the infidels".. They are fighting to EXPLOIT Saddam's overthrow for their OWN purposes of establishing an EVEN MORE BRUTAL totaltarian regime (ala Talibanization). Look at Afghanistan Michael.. The VERY SAME types of acts of violence are being perpetrated against Afghanis by the Taliban and Al Qai'da remnants. Their adherents are doing the same thing in Darfur, Somalia, Kashmir, and elsewhere. If you can't stomach the responsibility of being obligated to PREVENT Muslim children from being either brutalized, or subjugated and brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers in Iraq, then WHERE SHOULD WE CONFRONT THIS EVIL? We hear all this talk about leaving Iraq, but how is the situation on the ground really any different than in Afghanistan? We can debate the "legitimacy" of upholding binding UNSC resolutions against Saddam's regime until we're blue in the face. But there should be NO debate as to whether we have an obligation to assist a duly elected government in defending itself from foreign (or even internal) terrorism and totalitarianism. Hawk

To: michael97123 who wrote (2146)	7/9/2007 5:54:44 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 4152

"But in terms of realpolitik, i will not make policy that sends american troops to their death in a war that cant be won. I will not order that, regardless of how sick it makes me feel. I said the same thing defending US policy during WW2 as well regarding folks in the camps. It seems to me that we need to distinguish between 'Wars that can be won' where decisive victory over an identified enemy is definable... vs military missions that have another outcome, which is not an identifiable defeated enemy group. We have some responsibility with regards to the future of Iraqi people, without needing to identify a defeated enemy in the process. That responsibility should include supporting the security forces of Iraq until the national government is stable or until we can see that is not an option, at which point we should revise our mission, rather than abandon it.