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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (790143)	6/16/2014 2:53:00 AM
From: Bilow	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Respond to of 1578495

Hi i-node; Re: "I disagree. I think the Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, had a reasonable grasp of what military power could do. In fact, Bush made the correct call -- moving against all popular appeal -- to solve the problem the removal of Saddam had helped to create. Agreeably, it was a mix of military power and other tactics (including the use of quasi-mercenaries) to accomplish it, but it did work. Had we been willing to use it, military power could have brought the situation in Iraq to a quick and painless end. But it would have meant civilian casualties -- in WWII, civilian casualties were not only acceptable they were often targets. It is a different time and place."; The fact is that in the last 25 years, the wholesale massacre of civilians is not an acceptable military option because the situation simply doesn't justify that much force. Everyone knew this, I doubt that it was even argued. If the authorities had really understood what this limitation meant, in terms of "winning hearts and minds", they wouldn't have sent US forces into another "land war in Asia". I'm doomed. Because I hang around with right-wingers, I'm going to have to hear from them, for the next 30 years, about how "we could have won in Iraq if only". No. The mass killing of Iraqi civilians was not an option for Bush or Obama. The majority of the population deeply hated us. And it was utterly impossible for us to protect them from terrorists while rebuilding the country (which protection is the thing that converts hearts and minds). The reason it wasn't an option was because this wasn't a total war. It was a limited war. Only a country led by a madman could have pacified Iraq. Hitler could have done it, but it just was not possible in the US. And then Obama goes and arms the Syrian rebels. My theory is that he's stupid but you have to wonder if he deliberately kicked over the honey bucket. Assad was better than anything that's likely to come after him. I'm tempted to go reading the Israeli slant on all this. They can't be thinking it's good. -- Carl