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: Sun Tzu who wrote (148923)10/25/2004 9:58:10 AM
From: michael97123
   of 281500
 
Regarding the conventional weapons that are now missing. This is very disturbing to me and this isnt the first time since the iraq war began. I always thought prior to this war, that when we would come upon a large stash of weapons that we couldnt adequately guard, those weapons would be destroyed. I think that these weapons actually became part of the misguided admin view that the iraqis would be throwing flowers and that post war we would be easily able to regain control of these weapons to be ultimatley turned over to the new friendly iraq govt.
The failure of this war has more to do with poor administration from DOD than any perceived failure of neocon ideology you harp on. Neocon ideology was never wedded to the easy iraq scenario. There are plenty of neocons mortified how bush/cheney/rummy could have mismanaged things so badly. Although i dont consider myself a neocon, I do agree with them that kerrys record over the past 20 years, particularly in 1991, makes him an unacceptable replacement. I can only hope that in term 3, bush replaces DOD team and puts an exit date 9 months to one year out when our troops will leave. If there is any hope for iraq, it will be far easier for them to do it, unoccupied but not unhelped.
I am curious about your opinion on two things discussed above.
1. Kerry and the Gulf War and your impression then and now of the Gulf War.
2. Giving the iraqis and exit date. Mike

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148922)10/25/2004 10:05:51 AM
From: jlallen
   of 281500
 
I never said he never lies....i think you are "misremembering"....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Win Smith who wrote (148899)10/25/2004 10:34:26 AM
From: Harvey Allen
   of 281500
 
Whom is al-Qaeda voting for?
.
.
.
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the US leaving Iraq would be a major victory. And the US staying in Iraq - bleeding thousands of men and billions of dollars in the hands of a national guerrilla struggle - is also a major victory. So al-Qaeda does not bother to vote Bush or Kerry because the main sticking point - US policy in the Middle East, the thirst for oil, the one-sided support for Israel - will still be there. But in terms of accelerating a clash of civilizations - a total polarization between the Muslim world and the Christian world - of course al-Qaeda prefers a fundamentalist like Bush.

atimes.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: michael97123 who wrote (148924)10/25/2004 10:41:42 AM
From: Sun Tzu
   of 281500
 
>> Regarding the conventional weapons that are now missing. This is very disturbing to me and this isnt the first time since the iraq war began.

It is disturbing to me too. But I don't think it was unpredictable. In fact I have to admit Iraq is going better than I had expected. But that is only because I expected that moron, Saddam, to have been busy building post-invasion resistance force and actively distributing the ammo among all the Iraqi factions. He did not, so things are a little better than I expected.

>> The failure of this war has more to do with poor administration from DOD than any perceived failure of neocon ideology you harp on.

DoD is the Neocon movement. How many of the neocon pioneers are in DoD or related departments? Failure of DoD is the failure of neocons. One of the biggest problems with neocons is that they are too heavy handed. Their solutions to most problems is to blow more things up, fallowed by throw massive money at corporations with ties to themselves to "rebuild" what they blew up.

...about Kerry:
I am not terribly keen on the guy. I don't think there is a substantial difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq. Where the difference comes to play is that I think Kerry will be more reluctant to expand the war and he may possibly be better on the Afghanistan front.

On the other hand I think Kerry will be much better for the environment (how can anyone be worse than Bush?).

On the legal front, again, I don't think Kerry will right the wrong laws Bush has placed on the books. Governments never willingly give up power. I am mortified of the kinds of laws and policy changes Bush managed to get on the books. I can imagine Nightline interviews with the Ayatollahs, China, or North Korea where they will point out to the new Bush laws and point out how they are not so different than US. America can no longer claim to be the land of the free...and I don't think Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) will fix this unless they absolutely have to. But at least I'd have more faith in Kerry appointees to the supreme court than Bush's. So may be some day the court will moderate the civil rights.

I don't think stating an exit date is a good idea. It will just weaken the US position in Iraq and get the opposition started on planning for the date. But I think internally we should have an exit date somewhere between 1-5 years from now. I'd favor sooner rather than later. In an ideal world, I'd put a virtual Chinese wall around Iraq and pull out right away. After 10 years of none interference by anyone, Iraqis will have hammered out how they want to live and we'll negotiate with the government in charge...but of course this will not be easy without international support and all those US corporations who want a piece of "rebuilding" will not let it happen.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: jlallen who wrote (148925)10/25/2004 10:42:45 AM
From: Sun Tzu
   of 281500
 
I am sorry, I did not realize when I talk of neocons it means jlallen personally.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148928)10/25/2004 10:44:32 AM
From: jlallen
   of 281500
 
Ok...I don't know any "neocons" who think that way either....myself included....your statement was a bit sweeping....

JLA

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148835)10/25/2004 11:03:09 AM
From: jttmab
   of 281500
 
"All the arguments say that when sanctions ended, Saddam Hussein would have had a free hand. By the council's [Security Council of which the US is a veto holding member] own resolutions that wasn't so."

That was a very good point that was completely ignored by the media. It was ignored by everyone in the public eye. [Sorry, you don't count someone in the public eye. Nor would I.]

jttmab

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148840)10/25/2004 11:05:00 AM
From: jttmab
   of 281500
 
If someone like Tom Clancy had written a fictional book that followed the politics of the last four years, it would have been ridiculed as unimagineable.

jttmab

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148847)10/25/2004 11:08:07 AM
From: jttmab
   of 281500
 
I don't expect any pro-Bush folks to reply to your post because they see nothing wrong with contravening Geneva convention

Which probably has something to do with the majority of Britains no longer seeing the US as a model of democracy. The US is becoming a middle ages country with high tech.

jttmab

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148836)10/25/2004 11:09:05 AM
From: carranza2
   of 281500
 
If you think France and Germany have to lend their (largely symbolic) support to a US move for it to be "legitimate" then you're entitled to your opinion.

From strictly commercial and domestic political standpoints, which is what the Germans and French seem to understand best, not supporting the US invasion made a lot of sense.

Why do any heavy lifting to secure oil supplies if the bulk of the dirty work was [again] going to be done by the US? Why pay for oil security if the US had clearly signalled its intention to invade Iraq unilaterally? Why risk the wrath of the voters if a reflexive anti-US stance increased chances of re-election?

Seems fairly simple to me.

Economic and domestic political interests coincided in this case to preclude France and Germany from doing the right thing.

The problem will be one of ultimate perceptions. While the US and the UK are the only major powers fighting the Jihadists with any kind of zeal, such zeal is suspect and will become even more suspect if Kerry is elected and Blair dumped. If my thinking that a show of weakness to the Jihadists is deadly, then the French and Germans are in for a very rough time as they have in essence capitulated to them at a time when their own domestic Muslim populations are growing.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10