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: frankw1900 who wrote (105788)	7/17/2003 1:31:54 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900; Re: "It doesn't fit US history." Exactly. This is my big complaint. The problem is that the American public of today is not the same as the public that put Hitler out of power. Yes, a preemptive war does not "fit US history". It would be a stain on our honor even if WMDs had been found. Your long list of "ends justifies the means" bullshit should be answered item by item: Re: "Allowing the US to put pressure on the failed regimes around Iraq to drain their own swamps, or be drained." There is not the slightest evidence of this. North Korea continues to work on making nukes. Iran is training some of the guerillas who are shooting at us. Syria is still making WMDs. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait haven't made any significant steps towards democracy. Re: "Allowing surrounding countries to reform without interference from Iraq." Again you make Iraq up to be a tiger. It had no WMDs. It had no influence on the surrounding nations. You don't have the slightest example of interference from Iraq, with the sole exception that they gave money to Palestinian "freedom fighters". Re: "Allowing surrounding countries to reform without military interference from Iran." This is such a joke. Iran is interfering so much in Iraq now that our government has to repeatedly tell them to back off. But with more than half our land forces bogged down in Iraq (for the foreseeable future), there isn't anything left with which to threaten Iran. Re: "Allowing the US to pursue the terrorists who almost destroyed its government and defence administration from a ME base." There were zero Iraqis on the 9/11 planes, and damn little evidence that Iraq had anything to do with it. The search for Osama bin Laden has failed to dig him out for approaching 2 years. In another few weeks Iraqis will have killed more Americans since the beginning of the war than they ever killed in all of our nation's history before that. Re: "Allowing the US to vigorously promote democracy in a country ..." That must be why they keep postponing elections, LOL. Re: "... next door to Iran which population is showing ardent desire for democracy - promote political headroom for folk who don't have any." We have zero ability to influence Iran. Iraq has proved that as far as conquering and occupying nations, we are a paper tiger. Before the war the Iranian rulers thought that they "were next". This was widely reported in the newspapers. Since the guerilla war gained strength, the Iranian regime has expressed its confidence that the US doesn't dare try to take it on. Some influence. Re: "Allowing Saudi Arabia to go through its Afghanistan-under-the-Taliban stage, if it has to, without screwing world oil supplies at the margin." (a) You're being very hopeful about that "without screwing world oil supplies", as public opinion in Saudi Arabia has yet to reject Islamic fundamentalism. (b) If you're assuming that oil from Iraq will provide the "margin" even if Saudi Arabia is destabilized, then you're being even more hopeful, given that Iraq is in a state of deliberate sabotage. (c) Before the war, the neo con artists were saying that the war wouldn't destabilize Iraq's neighbors. Now they're saying that the destabilization is good, LOL. Re: "This may or may not be a crappy rationale but you can't make the case it is the result of fearfulness ("cowardice") on the part of US people or their government." I agree that there were neocon plans to redo the middle east before the WTC attack, but until they could convince the US swing voters, there was no way they could pull it off. It was the fear in the hearts of the swing voters that gave sufficient power to the neocons that they could pull this boner. Re: "But, again, dropping to name calling and insults ("idiots," "cowards") as you have lately isn't an argument and doesn't have legs, except in the Buchananite corner where you're preaching to the converted." If all I did was "name call" and "insult", then why are you writing these long and detailed posts to me, LOL. Come on, admit it. There is far more in my posts than just name calling and insults. Re: "It's your propaganda attempt ..." It's quite true that the American public was scared shitless from the WTC attacks. And it's quite true that multiple media sources now call the Iraq guerilla war a "quagmire". Do you want me to show you quotes from thread denizens where they admit their fears? The usual definition of propaganda is an attempt to make people believe something that isn't true. So if you want to talk about propaganda you should look to what the Bush regime was saying before the war: WMDs all over Iraq. Iraqis will love us. Military and police will convert to new government, except for leaders. Saddam is dead, dead, dead. Major hostilities are over. Troop strength will be less than 30,000 by the end of the year. The 3rd infantry will be home in May. Basic services have been restored to the prewar level. Iraq tried to buy yellow cake from Niger. The weather baloon trucks were used to make biological weapons. The Iraqis will not shoot back. We will prevent looting and chaos. The Basra shiites are revolting. Etc. Re: "You figure if you hit them in their self image they'll keep quiet." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! -- Carl