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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (43861)	9/14/2002 11:19:21 AM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

at times i like to challenge 'the conventional thinking'...read (and even post) alternative perspectives on what may be happening around us. You mean if you perceived the the predominant attitude on this board was antiwar and anti Bush you'd be posting articles from Worldnet instead? That "Question authority!" and playing devil's advocate attitude only goes so far. At some point one must decide which POV one agrees with and why. IMO someone who posts continually from one POV must agree with it for the most part. So I conclude that despite your careful distancing of yourself from your posts (I'm a registered Independent, etc) that you agree with them. But in the end you aren't discussing or arguing, like Bilow or Nadine or Hawkmoon. You post, and after a while that gets tedious, especially since most of the articles are from the same POV. So I tune you out, defeating your stated purpose.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (43861)	9/14/2002 12:57:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Hi Scott, I do appreciate the different viewpoints. I just wish you would exercise more editorial capacity, and concentrate on showing us the different viewpoints that you think have merit; don't just cut and paste all contrary arguments, the good ones and the totally lame ones indiscriminately. I am unlikely to be surprised by anything the New York Times editorial board has to say; still less by six other newspapers whose editorials are habitually me-too copies of the New York Times' editorials. And if you think the author has one good point in an otherwise mediocre article, please excerpt the money paragraph for us and link the rest. Most things on this board get skimmed quickly; if we could know that you are pointing us to the heart of a real argument you would find that your posts would get more attention.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (43861)	9/14/2002 2:01:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I've never tried to become popular... Well, they say that if everyone is thinking alike, no one's thinking.. So I welcome informed and logical alternate perspectives... I think Derek is a bit annoyed that you spend more time presenting other people's ideas, rather than presenting more of your own. But none of us should be brainwashed by the rhetoric on either side of the issue. And as narrowly defined as the rhetoric often is, politically "packaged" for the consumption of the American voter and global population, we must seek to expand the analysis and recognize not only the agendas of the participants, but also the things they are not publicly willing to present. I think Saddam has to go, and not for most of the reasons being cited (like he will attack us with Nukes or other WMDs).. I'm not thinking tactically, but rather strategically. Saddam, with the protection of nuclear weapons, will only become a greater threat in the region, advancing his agenda of unifying the Arab people under his rule and creating something that would make Hitler look like a choir boy... And we just got out of one cold war.. I would hate to see us have to fight another one. This is a case of "an ounce of prevention... ", backed by the fact that Saddam has scoffed at abiding by UN sanctions. Sanctions that the US and Britain are forced (by their strength) to enforced by a costly mechanism of "containment" that forces US personnel to serve extended overseas tours of duty.. All because the UNSC is freeloading on the back of US military might. Well, the free ride is over so far as I'm concerned. Hawk