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: Sam who wrote (118473)	11/4/2003 1:06:09 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And I see the reality as the Bush admin playing politics with this Iraq action in general, and with the soldiers that he sent to Iraq in particular. And that is utterly contemptible. And you're side of the debate LOST!! The time to protest this war was BEFORE it happened. Now that we're in Iraq, the only solution is to FINISH THE JOB and quit yo' btchin'... Either join the team, or find another country where your views put you on the "winning" side.. It is amazing to me that I talk about Saddam and Osama being enemies* Because before Osama Bin Laden ever crossed paths with the US, it was nations such as Iraq which were funding and training the most well established terrorist groups in the region. All in concert with the Soviets. Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas... Salman Pak... You have a myopic view about this war.. It's not just about Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. It's about terror, its cause, and its supporters and financiers. And if we have to dispose of an intransigent regime such as Saddam's in order to effect victory in that war, then so be it. After all, why is it that you find it so "contemptible" that we liberated the majority of the Iraqi people (at least the ones who weren't part of the prior regime's priviledge class)?? Did you have some kind of love for Saddam? Did you admire his genocidal tendencies? Looking for an personal invite to one of his plush palaces? What's contemptible is that in continuing to criticize this war, you're effectively creating the impression that you would desire Saddam's regime to return. That you would, if you could, withdraw all US troops from the region, and leave Iraq to fall into absolute civil war. Look, I supported Bush in his Afghanistan bombings. Good.. because there's a lot of work to do there as well.. I would have supported sending troops into Afghanistan to clean up the warlords. What's the difference between cleaning up the warlords who had nothing to do with 9/11, and taking out Saddam's regime? No difference at all, except geography and culture. KEEP THE FOCUS ON AL QAEDA. STOP CONFUSING THE ISSUE WITH IRRELEVANCIES. What incredible ignorance you are displaying... Do you even know what Al-Qaeda is? What its purpose was? Are you really so naive as to believe its just a single terrorist group? GEEZUS!! Al-Qaeda is nothing more than an umbrella group for a mish-mash of associated/affiliated terrorist groups. Terrorist groups that might share common goals, but also possess differences between them... Al-Qaeda is a form of terrorist "mutual fund", investing and facilitating terror by a wide range of groups. Focusing on Al-Qaeda means we have to focus on EVERY affiliated group, and even groups we don't yet know about.. that I oppose the Iraqi business as a distraction from that. How can you claim that it's a distraction when one of the primary purposes of liberating Iraq is to provide an alternative oil producer to Saudi Arabia? THAT country is where the heart of Islamo-Fascism lies. And the best way to clean out that snake's pit of Wahhabist militancy is to be in a economic and military position to force the Saudi Royal family to make those changes (or face the consequences)... And YOU CAN'T DO THAT FROM AFGHANISTAN OR PAKISTAN!! Hawk