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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (427860)	7/16/2003 2:21:41 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

PROLIFE, either you have difficulty with reading comprehension or you deliberately misunderstand plain language. For instance: 1. >>"the point is whether this is one where we SHOULD cut our losses no, we should not. and, if so, whether the cost is justified. why does everything come down to the almighty dollar for your type?"<< My type? My type understands that when we're talking about cutting our losses in the "peace" in Iraq, we're talking about cutting the loss of life first, and the loss of everything else second. 2. >>"It's becoming more clear that we will be facing a guerrilla force that is comprised of at least several factions no, what is clear is that terrorists are attacking our forces...and I am here to ask you, if you do not wish to face them in Iraq...when and where DO you propose that the USA confront them.....because we will be forced to do that very thing."<< What is it about the situation in Iraq that you don't understand. The majority of those people that are attacking us were not anti-American, active terrorists pre-invasion, but now that they are resisting our occupation of Iraq you call them terrorists? Does the fact that as we "confront them" we're likely to create a cycle of more terrorists and more killing, as happened in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, escape you? Do you really think we can combat terrorism by simply killing terrorists? Do you think that they're going to stop simply because we have overwhelming power? Has that ever stopped terrorism? In Ireland? In Afghanistan occupied by Russia? In Vietnam? In Palestine? Where has that worked? What I "DO" suggest is that we don't stick our noses into situations that we cannot control where it creates MORE hatred and violence against America and American interests, and that we do what we started to do post 9/11; that is that we fight terrorism, not invade and occupy a third rate military power that posed NO REAL THREAT TO US. 3. >>"It was critically important that the Bush Administration be right when it told us that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and open arms BS..you are spinning...many did...the terrorists will never welcome us...the radical Islamists will never welcome us anywhere on earth....you know it , I know it."<< I'll go you one further; a majority of moderate Islamics will never welcome us as an occupying force that stands in the way of a theocratic government in a country like Iraq and to attempt that goal is the height of arrogance. Further the "terrorists" WILL WELCOME us. It's exactly what they want. You must see that. As far as the "many did" welcome us statement, that's not the point. The point is that there is enough support for a guerrilla resistance and evidently not enough popular Iraqi support to suppress that resistance and that leaves us where????? Finish the thought. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the prospect of continued loss of American lives, continued loss of Iraqi lives of those that support us openly and, ultimately, in a quagmire. That's right, a "guagmire." Whose son or daughter will come home in a body bag and why. 4. >>"Our "liberation" or Iraq has left many average Iraqis with no voice in their government, no choice in their police force, no jobs, no security for their families, and at the beck and call of armed foreigners who don't speak their language or share their culture. your name Hussein? look at the council...although picked by the US, look at the diversity of the council...what voice would they have had under Saddam?"<< Are you joking. First the council has only the authority WE ALLOW them. Second the diversity of the "council" is not in terms of whether they see things our way politically. Third, where are the people that voted against Saddam with their lives. It's about American interests, puppet governments and toeing the line. These statements are almost as silly as your previous attempt to allege that Clinton was at fault for letting our military dwindle to the point where we had too few troops to occupy Iraq with all of our other problems. Did it ever occur to you that neither Clinton nor any other reasonable person could have forseen that we would elect and support an administration ignorant enough to invade and occupy an Arab nation the size and makeup of Iraq WITHOUT U.N. SUPPORT, without broad coolition support (not just "attaboys" but troops and funding) and without an exit plan that was quick and workable? I'm not sure that discussions with you will yield any new insights. So far all I've heard from you is the surface thinking of a Bush apologist, with a tinge of "unpatriotic" thrown in for flavor.