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: Selectric II who wrote (484941)	11/1/2003 7:32:41 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

First off, I didn't edit your post. I simply responded to it. Second, war is "Terrorism." Third, many wars have included "genocide." Fourth, many wars have created "slavery." Fifth, wars have involved "Ethnic cleansing" Sixth, yes, "famine" has accompanied war. Now to the question as to whether or not to go to war. Probably best if going this route to have allies. Real allies, and not a faked or bribe-induced coalition. In my view--a view shared by many now (I'm surprised you haven't yet come to this conclusion)--the U.S. acted unilaterally against Iraq. Bad move. Especially if beginning a war where many of the items you referenced can and do happen. Finally, as to your below comment: "There are some very good and just reasons for waging war. Fortunately, they don't occur in the United States very often...." There was neither a good nor a just reason for waging this war. Were this the case, the Bush-Cheney and Blair administration's public relations campaign wouldn't have been necessary. Virtually every American, not just half of 'em, would support such a war were this war necessary. Further, Bush obviously successfully played war politics during the congressional elections and thus the GOP kept both the House and the Senate. Indeed, he thought he could win it easily. But we're now seeing though he won the House and the Senate, he hasn't yet won the war, this contary to his "mission accomplished" assertion. The problem with your logic, Selectric, is that we're still in this war and it is widening as a consequence of our actions. Worse, we don't really have true allies to "rise to the occassion," so to speak. Not a good way to be in a war. Agree? Now, is the war widening? Read this: "... This is an insurgency we're fighting in Iraq. Our 130,000 soldiers in Iraq now confront an angry but not yet defeated Sunni Muslim population who, although a minority in Iraq, had been in power for a century. We are now also beginning to face terrorists there, but it is our own doing. Our attack on Iraq -- and our bungling of the peace -- led to the guerrilla insurgency that is drawing jihadists from around the Muslim world. The ``shock and awe'' campaign so vividly shown on our television screens has galvanized historic Arab envy, jealousy and resentment of the United States into white-hot hatred of America. Where once there were thousands, now there are potentially millions of terrorists and sympathizers who will be drawn into this campaign...." Message 19313848