SI
SI
discoversearch

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.

   PoliticsForeign Affairs Discussion Group


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: GST who wrote (148891)10/24/2004 11:01:40 PM
From: jlallen
   of 281500
 
Non sequitur......thanks....I figured you'd have nothing relevant to say...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148893)10/24/2004 11:11:43 PM
From: Michael Watkins
   of 281500
 
I find it difficult to rationalize the actions of an administration whose leader would find it abhorrent to destroy a single living embryo in a test tube, yet has no problems sending the country into a war where over a thousand troops, and many thousands of innocent civilians will be killed and are being killed, justified on evidence that was misleading and ultimately proved false.

I never claimed Saddam wasn't a repugnant dictator - but plunging the region into destabilizing turmoil via an unjustified war was not the way to deal with him. Bush may repeat "Iraq is the central focus in the war on terror" over and over again but that simply is not true. His own CIA report confirmed that.

His policy train wreck called Iraq has, unfortunately, opened up a *new* front in the war on terror.

Our government decisions have always taken our national interests

Hmnn, that's just a bit too much faith for me to swallow. It rings a little too strongly of "We're from the Government and we are here to help" -- i.e. policy is set by people and people screw up, sometimes enormously so. Just look at the past half decade for example after example of both good, and horrific, government decisions.

Aside from error in judgement, theres also the issue of power and corruption. Sadly, we've seen examples of where power corrupts in the past. We know that corporate interests weigh heavily on virtually all administrations - whether it results in actual corruption or simply undue influence on policy is a matter for great debate.

What's the old prosecutors line? Follow the money...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148894)10/24/2004 11:14:40 PM
From: Michael Watkins
   of 281500
 
That's not my intent. My intent is to show that duplicity is not found in the actions only of one nation. The US is every bit as guilty of this as any other major military power.

Its you, not me, that seeks to set out one country at a higher plane than another. I think, in general, all have the same faults. If the US comes up more often than some others, its only a reflection on the sheer enormity of its wealth, power, and influence.

Until some Star Trek utopia wanders along I'll keep my skeptical hat on which reminds me that power corrupts.

In the meantime, Bush apologists are trying - using whatever dirt they can find - to distract the discussion away from their boy's failings and dirt. I won't be distracted.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: SBHX who wrote (148895)10/24/2004 11:27:25 PM
From: Michael Watkins
   of 281500
 
I'm not going to apologize for stating the obvious - some people *do* have a simplistic view on the world, which they obtain from a news sound bite here or there, if at all.

Truth be told two of my best friends are blissfully unaware of the complexity of the world; one intentionally leaves himself that way. They drive me crazy, particularly when they react with amazement "I didn't know that" when we chit chat on issues over coffee.

Unfortunately an uninformed public is a compliant public not likely to hold politicians to account until *after* the damage is done. We need government that is truly accountable during their administration, not 4 years later at the polls.

What do we do now? That is indeed the question. Hopefully there'll be a reason to have plenty of discussions on this. Frankly, if the current administration remains in place I don't see that happening.

The simplistic answer is a change of leadership for one. Clearly that doesn't address the complexity of extracting the country from this mess.

Equally important as a first step, I would say, is changing the "followership" - i.e. - the people need to be engaged in a truthful discussion over how/what/why we got to this place and how/what/when are we going to do about it. The people need to become much more aware and involved and not just every four years.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148816)10/24/2004 11:31:20 PM
From: Sam
   of 281500
 
Nadine,
Compared with the protests against going into Iraq, protests against Afghanistan were miniscule. Most people understood that once the Taliban sided with Al Qaeda, that was it.

Iraq was a totally different story, despite efforts by so many to make it all part of the same fight.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: stockman_scott who wrote (148896)10/24/2004 11:33:16 PM
From: Michael Watkins
   of 281500
 
"A whistle-blower objected to the government's Halliburton deals-and says now she's paying for it.

As the Corps's top contract specialist, the letter says, Greenhouse had noted reservations on dozens of procurement documents over seven years. But it was only after she took exception to the Halliburton deal that she was warned not to do so anymore. The letter states that the major general who admonished her, Robert Griffin, later admitted in a sworn statement that her comments on contracts had "caused trouble" for the Army and that, given the controversy surrounding the contract, it was "intolerable" and "had to stop."


But Scott, the government acts with nothing but the highest morality - so this can't be true!

After all, she was merely the
Army Corps of Engineers top contract specialist, privy to all the details of the contract. What would she know?

[sarcasm off]

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Win Smith who wrote (148899)10/24/2004 11:36:03 PM
From: Michael Watkins
   of 281500
 
United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished after the American invasion last year.

Yes, just another example of how the world, and Iraq, is safer.

I've lost track of the number of reported screw ups - they are coming in so fast now the mind reels...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148902)10/24/2004 11:48:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281500
 
justified on evidence that was misleading and ultimately proved false.


Very slippery use of language, very common too. Used to prove that any information that turned out to be false must have been known to be false beforehand and therefore counts as a lie, since the only proper foreign policy is conducted using hindsight. The evidence that Saddam had CW, BW, and very probably still active NW programs was universally believed by intelligence services before the war. UNIVERSALLY.

Had Bush ignored this evidence, and then something happened, you would have been first in line condemning him for not "connecting the dots".

His policy train wreck called Iraq has, unfortunately, opened up a *new* front in the war on terror.

That's a good feature. I much prefer the front in Baghdad to Manhattan. Do you suppose Zarqawi would be selling shoes in Baghdad if we hadn't invaded?

It rings a little too strongly of "We're from the Government and we are here to help"

Huh? All I was trying to say was that the US judged its actions by its perceived nation interests, and occasionally did things for humanitarian reasons too. I wouldn't have thought this was a controversial statement. No implication of perfect judgment or rectitude was implied.

What's the old prosecutors line? Follow the money...


Absolutely. In Iraq, the money said, lift sanctions and buy the oil under market rates! We didn't follow the money. But the French sure did.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148903)10/24/2004 11:57:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281500
 
The US is every bit as guilty of this as any other major military power.

Its you, not me, that seeks to set out one country at a higher plane than another. I think, in general, all have the same faults. If the US comes up more often than some others, its only a reflection on the sheer enormity of its wealth, power, and influence.


I think I sense the logic here. Only the US is a major military power, so only they are capable of real faults. Different countries can and do behave quite differently, with different virtues and faults. America sees the world and behaves quite differently from most of Europe. America and Europe behave differently from the Arab world. You're trying to sweep differences under the rug.

I won't be distracted.


No, you'll remain so obsessed that you cannot look around you. Voting for Kerry because you don't like the way Bush handled the war is like a Union supporter voting for McClellan in 1864 because he didn't like the way Lincoln handled the Civil War (and boy were there some doozies of mistakes in that one, that cost thousands and thousands of lives). It makes no sense to chuck out one guy for mistakes in handling the war effort if you replace him with someone who intends to lose the war.

McClellan said he intended to negotiate. Kerry is not so honest, but I'm certain he intends to bail. I've seen him in operation for 18 years; when he is faced with opposition, he chooses the way of least resistance. Besides, he sees everything through the lens of Vietnam.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Sam who wrote (148905)10/25/2004 12:01:01 AM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 281500
 
Compared with the protests against going into Iraq, protests against Afghanistan were miniscule. Most people understood that once the Taliban sided with Al Qaeda, that was it.


They were much smaller but not miniscule. The main point is that the left in Europe and America did NOT support the war, as they now claim they did; they opposed it as they reflexively oppose any use of American military power. The position of the left after 9/11 was to say we should ask ourselves 'why they hate us' and change our policies. Certainly NOT to go to war.

It's the dishonest attempt to rewrite a history that's barely three years old that annoys me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10