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: cnyndwllr who wrote (430409)	7/21/2003 3:57:43 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769667

Well, I must admit...patience wears a bit thin when responding to the crackpot conspiracy theory of the day.....and of course so far my experience with you is comprised of the posting of some irrelevant analogies.....however, it is clear from the plain language of the speech Bush delivered, Blair's statements and the NIE that Bush was not "lying".......continuing to maintain that he "lied" is simply a lie itself and makes one wonder as to motivation.....

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (430409)	7/21/2003 4:02:33 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't think it is about projecting American views on the Middle East. It's about protecting America from more 9/11s. I suspect some would respond that this only invites more 9/11s. I disagree, and I see that response as being very myopic and impatient. ~SB~

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (430409)	7/21/2003 4:05:05 PM
From: George Coyne	Respond to of 769667

Question. Did Iraqis have that right under Saddam? Even assuming that our invasion of Iraq was motivated by humanitarian purposes, (which I don't) in the final analysis, doesn't it all come down to an acknowledgement of the fact that each culture, each nation and each region's peoples have the right and the power to choose their own path?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (430409)	7/21/2003 4:09:46 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In the face of increasing evidence that there were few, if any, compelling reasons for invading Iraq for "imminent danger" issues and given the Bush administrations continued proclamations that it "isn't about Iraqi oil," the "humanitarian" purposes are increasingly touted as the justification for the invasion and our continued presence in Iraq. The evidence does not support your claim that there was no imminent threat. Nor do I think the Administration has changed it position that Saddam was removed because of the threat his regime posed to the US and the region...even to global security given the proximity of the largest known oil reserves on the planet....

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (430409)	7/21/2003 4:21:21 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

My my. Most Bush supporters here are rational and have presented very well thought out arguments. My take on the thread seems to be the opposite of yours. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam was North against South. There was never an end to heavy combat. It grew right up to Nixon's withdrawal. The US never had control of North Vietnam. It never attempted to gather nationals into an assembly to construct a constitution. It never had the opportunity to search for hidden weapons or POWs. The North Vietnamese people never welcomed our troops as liberators. Because of technological limitations, collateral damage was very high in Vietnam. And we took 58,000 casualties in Vietnam. Aside from hit and run attacks on our troops, I see no similarities.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (430409)	7/21/2003 5:19:11 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 769667

Five replies, and how are the thread's conservatives doing? Re: "I haven't followed this thread for long but I'm curious; are there ANY pro-Bush admin posters here that will actually make a rational and well-thought out response to the important issues? Virtually every one of the "conservative" posters has seemed to often rely on bald-faced, emphatic conclusions to "support" their views, as if they believe that the strength of their assertions will end the discussion." #1. "To:cnyndwllr who wrote (430409) From: JLALLEN Monday, Jul 21, 2003 3:57 PM Respond to of 430453 Well, I must admit...patience wears a bit thin when responding to the crackpot conspiracy theory of the day.....and of course so far my experience with you is comprised of the posting of some irrelevant analogies.....however, it is clear from the plain language of the speech Bush delivered, Blair's statements and the NIE that Bush was not "lying".......continuing to maintain that he "lied" is simply a lie itself and makes one wonder as to motivation..... " 0 FOR 1. Doesn't respond to the crux of the post. Conclusions are totally unsupported. Attacks the "motivation" of the poster rather than addressing the substance of the post. Too funny. #2. "To:cnyndwllr who wrote (430409) From: SECULARBULL Monday, Jul 21, 2003 4:02 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 430453 I don't think it is about projecting American views on the Middle East. It's about protecting America from more 9/11s. I suspect some would respond that this only invites more 9/11s. I disagree, and I see that response as being very myopic and impatient." 0 FOR 2. Conclusions freely given but totally unsupported with facts or reasoning. What evidence or reasoning indicated an Iraqi connected 9/11 type of danger to the U.S.? What are the legal principles of international law that could be placed to lend rules of law to preemptive attacks on any people or nation that COULD potentially pose a FUTURE threat to the U.S.? #3. "To:cnyndwllr who wrote (430409) From: GEORGE COYNE Monday, Jul 21, 2003 4:05 PM Respond to of 430461 Question. Did Iraqis have that right under Saddam? [responding to]: Even assuming that our invasion of Iraq was motivated by humanitarian purposes, (which I don't) in the final analysis, doesn't it all come down to an acknowledgement of the fact that each culture, each nation and each region's peoples have the right and the power to choose their own path?" 0 FOR 3. Doesn't address most of the post. The one line that does address one of the questions in the post presents a conclusion in the form of a question that evidently presumes to answer itself. With regard to that inferred and unsupported conclusion, why didn't the Iraqis have the POWER to rid their nation of Saddam's rule? Why didn't we provide more support to those that would have fought to remove him? Was it because we didn't want the most likely force opposing him-the religious fundamentalists-to have power, even if that's what a majority of the Iraqis wanted? #4. "To:cnyndwllr who wrote (430409) From: JLALLEN Monday, Jul 21, 2003 4:09 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 430461 "'In the face of increasing evidence that there were few, if any, compelling reasons for invading Iraq for "imminent danger" issues and given the Bush administrations continued proclamations that it "isn't about Iraqi oil," the "humanitarian" purposes are increasingly touted as the justification for the invasion and our continued presence in Iraq.' The evidence does not support your claim that there was no imminent threat. Nor do I think the Administration has changed it position that Saddam was removed because of the threat his regime posed to the US and the region...even to global security given the proximity of the largest known oil reserves on the planet...." 0 FOR 4. Doesn't respond to the crux of the post and the reasoning behind your conclusions is not supplied. #5. "To:cnyndwllr who wrote (430409) From: BILL Monday, Jul 21, 2003 4:21 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 430478 My my. Most Bush supporters here are rational and have presented very well thought out arguments. My take on the thread seems to be the opposite of yours. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam was North against South. There was never an end to heavy combat. It grew right up to Nixon's withdrawal. The US never had control of North Vietnam. It never attempted to gather nationals into an assembly to construct a constitution. It never had the opportunity to search for hidden weapons or POWs. The North Vietnamese people never welcomed our troops as liberators. Because of technological limitations, collateral damage was very high in Vietnam. And we took 58,000 casualties in Vietnam. Aside from hit and run attacks on our troops, I see no similarities." 1 FOR 5. Bill, you raise some interesting dissimilarities between Iraq and Vietnam. I will reply separately and discuss the materiality of the distinctions you make. I may even have to fall back to analogizing between Iraq and Russian occupied Afghanistan. Thankyou for a thoughtful reply.