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: Bilow who wrote (100431)	6/5/2003 6:36:43 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow, Re: Sharon is surrendering to the Palestinians You are kidding, right? You must know by now that Sharon's talk is worth as much as Arafat's.

To: Bilow who wrote (100431)	6/5/2003 6:49:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You got some chutzpa, Carl, accusing me of exaggerating, then making up a list of whoppers like that. First of all, as I said before, even France, that was trying desperately to stop the war on Iraq, never said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. If any of the Security Council members had been in doubt, don't you think France would have tried the line on for size? Everybody knew that Saddam had WMDs. Secondly, every assertion in this list is a either a lie or totally clueless: There are a hell of a lot more than just one hole in Bush's head. He was wrong about how the Iraqi people would welcome us. He said they would welcome us, and rejoice over Saddam's downfall. They did. Just because we still having trouble with small minorities of fedayeen, former Ba'athists, and radical Shi'a, does not make the general statement untrue. Bush never said that occupying Iraq would be a picnic. It is only you who construct such strawman arguments. He was wrong about whether the Iraqi military would shoot back at us. Huh? Which 'wrong' are you claiming, that Bush said the Iraqis would defend Baghdad to the death or wouldn't shoot at all? Bush expected neither; he expected to fight a brief war, and he did fight a brief war. He was wrong about how world opinion would react to his naked aggression. He didn't care if the Euros squawked, Carl. He thought that American stature in the Mideast would be improved, and the current tour strongly implies that he was right. Who claims that American influence has been lessened? He was wrong in his belief that the lives of the Iraqi people would be improved by the removal of Saddam (at least so far). You asked any Iraqis about that? The rule of fear is gone, the mass graves are being emptied instead of filled, the exiles are coming home. He was wrong when he said that the head of Al Qaeda had been chopped off and it was defeated. He never said Al Qaeda had been defeated, just that it was on the run and diminished. Seen any attacks against hard targets since 9/11, Carl? When he said that major hostilities were over in Iraq he was wrong. So, are we fighting any major battles that I missed, Carl? Major hostilities are over. Your take on the Israeli situation is so absurd it's not even worth fisking. Sharon neither lied to Bush nor surrendered now - except by cooperating with Bush, if you call that surrender.

To: Bilow who wrote (100431)	6/5/2003 9:25:36 PM
From: EJhonsa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You knew that Iraq had WMDs in your heart, but your heart is black as coal, you have no empathy for others. You knew that Iraq had WMDs in your mind, but your mind is weak and easily fooled, you can't follow through the simplest logic. That's quite a lot of arrogance for someone who wrote the following less than three weeks before Baghdad fell: Message 18780063 That's right. The Israelis put a siege on a highly divided city 1/4 the population of Baghdad, only 10 square miles in area, with the assistance of one of the local ethnic groups, with supply lines of a tiny fraction of our lines to Kuwait, without our soldier's compunction to avoid civilian casualties, with the limited objective of uprooting a foreign occupier (the PLO, which had "overstayed its welcome in the country") as opposed to a very long time domestic government (the Baathists), with Beirut surrounded on one side by an easy to control water barrier, and the siege nevertheless took 70 days and resulted in a negotiated agreement. The Israeli experience in Lebanon was a disaster not only for them, but also for their Christian allies. Our problem in Baghdad is harder than the Israeli one in Beirut on every single point of comparison. Baghdad is bigger, the people are more united against us, our war aims are broader, we care more about what the civilians think about us, our supply lines are longer, Americans care less about Iraq than Israelis care about Beirut, our level of protest against the war is much larger than that of the Israeli public, and despite all these advantages that the Israelis had over our situation, it took them 70 days to achieve only a negotiated settlement. Or who wrote the following last December: Message 18300870 The Bush administration is continuing to fake a hard line on Iraq so that they can take credit for success when Saddam is supposedly separated from WMDs. If they quit with the noise, and Saddam continued with the cooperation (as he would, in order to achieve the elimination of sanctions), it would make it obvious that Iraq was not being forced by the US to suffer inspections. For the second quote, I just punched in a random post number to see what would turn up. I'm sure that a more thorough study would turn up plenty of other material. Eric

To: Bilow who wrote (100431)	6/6/2003 3:45:02 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

WOW, Carl...even for you, this is over the top. Why are you so angry? Did you think Saddam should be still in power and adding to the killing fields on a daily basis? >>>>>>>>There are a hell of a lot more than just one hole in Bush's head. He was wrong about how the Iraqi people would welcome us. He was wrong about whether the Iraqi military would shoot back at us. He was wrong about how world opinion would react to his naked aggression. He was wrong in his belief that the lives of the Iraqi people would be improved by the removal of Saddam (at least so far). He was wrong when he said that the head of Al Qaeda had been chopped off and it was defeated. When he said that major hostilities were over in Iraq he was wrong.<<<<<<<<