Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch Message Board

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: abuelita who wrote (60391)	10/14/2004 2:09:55 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (3) of 89467

Ya know what? I can appreciate where you're coming from. I'm not thrilled with the way everything is going nor do I think Bush has done everything right. The difference with you (compared to some other hacks on this board) is that I believe you've done some genuine thinking about some really tough issues. I think I've done that as well. As I've gotten older (still only 38) things aren't so black & white for me. The older I get the more shades of gray I see. I'm not so sure about Bush making a choice to become an empire. In fact, I see a guy who walked into a real tough spot. The market was in full crash mode when he took office and that wasn't his fault. Wealth evaporated in an alarming fashion. Corporate corruption was UFB and it had been going on long before he was even a candidate. People blame him for the Enrons and Worldcoms of the market. But the fact is the death spirals those companies went into were set to happen years before he took office. Layoffs were already planned and happening when he took office in 2001 and only got worse after the WTC event. Then comes 9/11! Anyone who believes that Bush allowed that to happen or could have prevented it has no grasp on reality. As far as being hated and people wanting revenge - well - I guess I'd say that was the case well before we invaded Iraq. If you think for 1 minute that Saddam wouldn't have helped terrorists strike the US again I'd have to disagree. He was still pissed about the first war and that was an effort to push him out of a country that he invaded. I might add we did that with the full support of the UN and our allies. When he raised the white flag it came with stipulations that he violated. Worse yet, our allies and the UN ( you know - that great coalition that Kerry says we Fcked up ) were actually cheating and profiting by violating the sanctions that were intended to topple him as a leader. I'm sorry it had to come to this. But I'm not sorry that we took matters into our own hands and said FCK YOU to our so called "allies" and the UN. They played a direct role in keeping Saddam in power which raised the potential revenge factor you speak of. So we invaded Iraq to eliminate that potential. Had Bush not done that and another 9/11 event happened (only with a Saddam connection this time) what kind of garbage film to you think Michael Moore would have made then? The way I see it we were faced with risk no matter what we did. I'd rather not be at war for the next 20 years but we've got a growing problem in Iran. They were going to go nuclear (or NU Q LAR <g>) whether we invade Iraq or not. Frankly I'm glad we have them surrounded on their turf. We ignored this stuff in the 70's and have tried to broker peace in that area for a long time. Now we face an elusive enemy that can deliver a knock-out punch with 1 strike. We've probably faced that possibility for longer than we'd like to believe. But if we weren't sure before 9/11 we are now! And given that I guess I'll I'd rather rely on an aggressive, proactive military than 30 years of failed negotiations that resulted in an attack on our soil.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next