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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (9322)	2/11/2003 1:12:12 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

While we are all ranting perhaps getting rid of NATO would be a good plan also. If they can't even plan for how they will protect a member nation in the event of an attack WTF good are they.

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (9322)	2/11/2003 2:35:45 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14610

Let's make one thing clear first... If it was up to me, I would fry every single known terrorist without much questioning --from Arafat, Khadafi, Hussein, Bin laden et all... I am not all opposed to getting rid of Saddam... and if I had my way... ALL the monarchs of the region... I mean. We are for democracy and all that yes? However, the way in which it is being approached I believe is not a very smart one... This is not going to be easy at all... if anybody thinks it will be a 4 - 8 week deal that are mistaken.... this will last and it will be costly and bloody... All I am saying is that we need the support from our "allied" We have been living with terrorism all these years and now all of a sudden we are in a hurry? Yes, I know... Sept 11 has made a difference... but we are NOT going to stop terrorism by attacking Saddam on our own. Is it part of the story... yes but it is not only that. I am not saying to stop with the monitoring and the pressure to FORCE Saddam to comply... it is NOT that I am suggesting we should not do anything about it... (And btw... Iraq is no WW II Germany) In 1991 we were already in Iraq... why did we stop in going after Saddam.... I mean what kind of deal was struck? Now, of all of a sudden we can't wait to get him? Taking a smarter approach to this action (by somehow forcing the support and commitment of the Europeans), does not preclude us from continuing to seek the terrorists and blow them to bits.... usually these people are hidden in ratholes... So one side of this issue does not stop us from the main objective (assuming SUCH is the main objective) i.e. get the terrorists. We weren't in WWII either and had it not been for us and a bad winter on the Russian front we would all be making BMW's right now. Well... funny you say that... because... guess what? We ARE building BMW's -gg Hitler was a maniac and was going to get his winter in Russia as much as Napoleon did. As for us getting involved in WWII... uff too bad you touched on this... You see... it is not the fact that in the end we would be involved in WW II but it is the damned ARRROGANCE of the politicians in which they go about getting their objectives... and THAT is what I am against. The method in which they get us there. Pearl Harbor comes to mind... The US high command KNEW the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did NOTHING... (Oh. What a coincidence that the entire aircraft carriers were conveniently "out of harbor" on that day)... I really do not want to get into that because it pisses me off to no end. --And I know from a close reliable source of what I am talking about-- so let's not go there... It is the lies that piss me off about the real reasons why we go to war. Patriotism and all that jazz have little to do with it at the political level (other than being used as an excuse... unfortunately for the soldiers... yes, patriotism is what gets them killed... so no, I am NOT criticizing the soldiers. My admiration goes to them for their courage and readiness... I question the REAL reasons why we get into these conflicts and the method whereby we risk the lives of those who really fight... NOT the damned loudmouth politicians that all they do is sell themselves to the highest bidder. We do not need to expose thousands of soldiers to the evils of Saddam and cronies ... I say bomb the shit out of every hole were terrorists are known to be and be done with it... we have the technology to pick them. Like you... I agree... bomb the North Korean installations and be done with it... after that... we do the talking and the same goes for Saddam... BUT NO INVASION.... NO LONG TERM HANKY PANKY... if we want that. Then the French and the Germans etc etc have to come along. That way NO SINGLE USA target is exposed. We have the technology... we should re-vamp the CIA I mean most of these countries can be bribed and find their secrets.... what is the need of a physical occupation? Have we NOT learned our lessons from history? We are acting like Victorian Imperialists.... We are in the 21st century.... with all kinds of technology that can eavesdrop on anyone... we have weaponry that can be guided and send a missile up somebody's arse-hole. Why deploy the soldiers... and make a butchery of the campaign...