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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (12258)	12/7/2007 1:31:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

The 'national media' is as incompetent as per usual. (Would not, and probably should not, expect too much wisdom or insight from that direction....) Regarding 'what he would answer'. Suggest you will have to go to the source for that one. All I can do (without appearing to put words in other people's mouths) is tell you how I WOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.... Re: "...-what ...the result will be of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq" A) Define 'precipitous'.... Question cannot be properly answered without that important info. B) However, can answer (with a range of probabilities) what the 'results of a properly executed withdrawal are likely to be. Either relative peace and a political reconciliation among the various Shia & Sunni factions in Iraq evolves --- to our and their benefit. (Once they don't have 'Uncle Sucker' around anymore to fight their fights for 'em, and to provide the BILLIONS that they suck from us....) Or the irredentist strains dominate (either relatively quickly and peacefully - they agree to split 'Iraq' into Kurdish and Shia and Sunni State-lets) --- to our ultimate strategic benefit.... Or, they FIGHT a more active Civil War before breaking into Shia/Sunni/Kurdish zones of influence --- sharpening the regional competition between the Iraqi Shia & Iranian Shia side and the Saudi & Gulf Arab Sunni side, and the Kurdish / Turkomen polarity. Most of these developments ALSO proving to be MUCH MORE beneficial to America's long-term strategic interests then the current tragically expensive waste of a mis-mash of a so-called 'policy' (that is ultimately unsustainable and counter-productive for America.) Either of the above three resolutions would be much more beneficial to American interests then the status quo... BY FAR. Re: "...intend to withdraw our troops from other places too, such as Korea and Germany?" A) Withdrawals (albeit overly slow) are already national policy for both areas --- though some significant number, for example, of the troops being pulled out of Germany are being redeployed further East (Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.) As for S.K., we are actively pulling forces out of central Seoul, and backing them further down the pennusula... although a force reduction is (& long has been) planned. B) Most likely, however, Germany, Turkey, Kurdistan, Japan, South Korea (& G.B., Aus., etc.) will remain as cornerstones of our force projection for a long, long time. Hard to argue that the policy of protecting (to the tune of hundreds of Billions of bucks, over the years) the corrupt Autocratic regimes of the Middle East are in our national interests any longer though! Or that the American taxpayers should be picking up the tab for folks well-able to pay for their own defense... or that we ACTUALLY NEED to pour out the sums we do, in hundreds of foreign lands, either in 'defense' or in 'foreign aid' costs.... Re: "...does he think the rest of the world will just start being nice to us all of a sudden?" Believe that would be more accurate to say 'nicer'. Countries, as always, will generally act in what they perceive to be their own interests. Re: "-would he have joined in the fighting in WWII, or sat that one out, too" Paul would be fighting for his country. (Believe perhaps you have confused him with Bush, or Cheney, or 'Wolfie', or one of the numerous other 'special cases'....)