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: Hawkmoon who wrote (118487)	11/4/2003 8:28:54 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And you're side of the debate LOST!! You may pretend that there was a debate, but there was no debate. There were words, sure. But the Bush admin just steamrollered and ignored the opposition, they never engaged them. They invented a phony "imminent" threat that now they say wasn't really an imminent threat but me and "my ilk" would [sneer] wait until it became imminent?! But if you recall the fall of '02 (not coincidentally leading up to the election) the threat was terribly imminent. We had to have a resolution on war IMMEDIATELY, we didn't have time to hold real hearings, as some in the Senate demanded, no, Saddam was too imminent a threat. "What's the rush?" was the theme a Robert Byrd speech. Why do we need this resolution now, why can't we hold hearings, do more investigating? No, the Saddam threat is now, the Bush admin insisted. Bah, the UN, the inspectors, they'll never find anything, they'll never do anything, Saddam's got nuclear programs, he's got biological programs, we already need smallpox vaccinations for the whole country, yes and we don't have enough vaccine, oh my gosh, it would be derilection of responsibility to not get a war resolution right now. Remember all that? Remember how Bush stumped the US before the election, scaring the sh-t out of people, telling them that he had to have "his" people in the Senate so that he could protect the country properly and get his programs? Right, Hawk. And you go on maintaining that that wasn't playing politics with war? People wonder why so many people who have memories that stretch waaaaayyyyy back to the fall of 2002 feel anger and contempt for Bush? War isn't a game. Even if you consider electoral politics a game, war isn't one. People are really dead and wounded and psychologically scarred. Others are really grieving. You maintain that domestic politics isn't what this war with Iraq is about in some essential way? You maintain instead that Saudi Arabia "is where the heart of Islamo-Fascism lies", so we go to war with Iraq?! And you say, "Al-Qaeda is a form of terrorist "mutual fund", investing and facilitating terror by a wide range of groups." You're right, if you are right in this view, then I am myopic. Not that I don't think that there aren't several branches of Al Qaeda. I do. But I don't think Saddam was one of them. Saddam was their enemy not their friend. And we could have and should have used that fact against them. But nevermind. I have to go now. I suspect we are just throwing words at each other at this point. You will continue to think I am myopic and/or a traitor, I will continue to think that you are delusional and a representative of the self-destructive part of the US that is the reason why so many people mistrust this country. What a country.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (118487)	11/4/2003 4:57:33 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "And you're[sic] side of the debate LOST!!" Just because the morons won a vote doesn't mean that the laws of nature are repealed. Hey, if you stick your pecker in a hornet's nest you're going to get hurt, and having 55% of the (illiterate) American public saying otherwise ain't gonna make it feel any better. What's ridiculous is somehow believing that the side that was RIGHT is going to shut up, just because they lost the vote. The simple fact is that if there hadn't been a war with Iraq, you'd STILL BE ARGUING FOR IT, so why the f' should we shut up about arguing against it? You're operating in a dreamland, a land where everyone in the US thinks like you. Think again, and make adjustments for the fact that Bush is a one term president. -- Carl