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 (507828)	12/11/2003 2:54:18 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but your opinions seem to be based more on your emotions than facts on the ground. I'll highlight points you make and state why I think they are not valid. "the hundreds of billions of dollars that we are spending, and will continue to spend in Iraq, are no longer available for expenditures to identify and nuetralize the active terrorist networks that exist all over the world" And this is based on what facts? Your logic is based on you having explicit knowledge of our entire budget (or budget capacity) for the war on terrorism and a belief that you know the most efficient way to spend this money better than Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. That is laughable to me. The "these guys are really dumb" argument is a bad one imo. You also seem to be under the belief that we are not adequetly seeking to "identify and nuetralize the active terrorist networks that exist all over the world". My belief is that we are doing both. What EVIDENCE do you have that we are not doing the latter? Lots of arrests in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, Spain and other areas. We are working with the Pillipine Gov't on terrorist groups based there. No new attacks on America. I'd say we are doing a good job of both, and that we are NOT neglecting areas other than Iraq. "has it (Iraq) become a significant piece (of the war on terrorism) as a result of blunders and miscalculations on the part of the Bush team" No. It was a selected target (remember the axis of evil), and has been since the very beginning. Surely you realize that. Before you bring up the bogus WMD argument let me state that the WMD issue was a legitimate justification (one of many) that helped the public and other nations support the removal of Saddam. The goal of the Iraq war is to have a working and succesful democracy in the heart of terrorist country. A damn good idea imo. The appeasers and Bush/America attackers think the middle east was better off staying the same, but I think that is soooooo naive that I have trouble thinking a person is even honest when they hold that position. "and are we doing more harm than good by getting our ass kicked there and retaliating by bombing buildings we control while we concurrently kill and arrest a lot of people who are not terrorists?" Good example of the defeatist mentallity on the left. I am saddened by any loss of American lives over there, but your view that we are "getting our ass kicked" and that we "bomb(ing) buildings that we control" is wrong, and it shows how you build your anti-American position on false information or beliefs. Also incredibly disrespectful to our military to say they are outmatched and that we blow up buildings for show. "I get tired of hearing the Bush people say "better there than here."" Get some sleep then. It is BETTER THERE THAN HERE. This war needs to be fought, and none of you people that are against our position has any better ideas. Only empty criticism of people who are far smarter (most likely), and definately far more informed than you. "Those that would attack us here are very well-trained and in place" How do you know? Are you one of them? Do you know any of them? I hope and prey that we don't have another 9-11, but I would say they would have tried something by now if they were "very well-trained and in place". Why, iyo, are they holding back? "The threat they pose is as real now as it was before we created a killing ground for Americans in Iraq" The people that support our President and country prefer to call it the liberation of Iraq as opposed to "killing ground for Americans". Funny that the majority of Iraqis agree with OUR interpretation. The terrorists are the ones that use your interpretation. "It is through our blunders that we have created a rich environment for them to thrive in and they are taking advantage of that blunder to kill us" Is America responsible for ALL terrorists iyo? Don't you think that it may be our success in the initial war that has given the dead enders no choice but to try to manipulate how you and other bleeding hearts think by killing our people? They think we are weak. Bush (and our military) is showing them that we are not. You and the others that are against America give them the false hope that we are weak. That actually emboldens them and results in more death. "I'm not all for using tactics that are foolish, counterproductive and wrong." Then you should SUPPORT AMERICA AND OUR ALLIES. Not the terrorists and their allies. Because it is the TERRORIST tactics that are counterproductive and wrong. If all civilized people realized this we would not have the problem we do. But there are many like you who say it is America's fault. Oh well, I can only say that you are on the loosing side. "We should remember that we must balance short term objectives with long term goals that maximize the real goal of our war on terror" WE do. You should realize that a stable a prosperous Iraq will take a few years to achieve (long term, remember?), and that the whole world (except for terrorists and those that support them) will benefit. It is plain to see. "the goal of enlisting the aid of all nations and all peoples to unite against the use of violence against innocent men, women and children " Your pretty funny. The GOAL is to end terrorism. Bush tried very hard to enlist everybody, and like I said, there are a lot of people (and countries) who WOULD NOT support us. You would rater sit around and wait for 2 or 3 more 9-11's to see if they will come around, and Bush thinks it is better to act with those who are with us. I am with Bush on this 110%. Waiting for Saddam's business partners (Russia, France and Germany) and the America haters of the world (including in the U.S.) to come around is a bad idea. Bush made a solid effort. They (and you) didn't want to come. So now you attack and criticize. "I would like to hear you tell me what you THOUGHT would happen in Iraq at the time of invasion, a month later and 3 months later" I THOUGHT it would be a bit easier than it has been, but am not surprised at how hard it has been. I am also dissapointed that the news doesn't report any of the positives, but we live in a negative society. They just feed the doomsayers like yourself. "What is it about the "liberation" of Iraq that makes you feel so confident that we are "winning?"" 70% of the Iraqi population thinks they will be better off in 5 years than they were with Saddam. That is a pretty clear indicater imo. And I hate to see us loose American lives, but we loose more every day in America by a long shot to gang violence in our own cities. Something that does not seem to bother the dems (or most repubs for that matter). Overall I think the world (and especially the Iraqis) are better off without Saddam. It is obvious that you don't share this view, but it is a free country and you can believe what you want. The mess in the middle east has spilled across the entire globe at this point, and I am damn thankful that we have a courageous leader that will do something about it. I wish more supported him, but like him, I am of the frame of mind that we had to act. To wait for France to side with us would end up costing a lot more lives. I would like to note that no evidence was brought up to support your position. Only emotionally charged opinions that you have that are stated as facts.