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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (12276)	1/21/2004 6:15:40 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

Bush didn't invent the idea of Iraq under Saddam pursuing or having WMD's or the need to do something about it Did I ever said he did? That point, incidentally, is the response to the article or letter you posted No it is not. That Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs, or that many others may have thought something had to be done about it does not answer THIS point, which is why I said I found interesting about his letter: "Using words like "misled," "exaggerated" and "overestimation" is itself misleading. The pretext for all of this - that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction - was ultimately found to be baseless. Are we to believe that everyone in government was so naïve or stupid that they could be so easily misled by "inaccurate information" with all those cries for reason and caution being raised in the background?" Even if you are referring to what the guy said about Iraq's invasion being a "crime", as I said before, I cannot see how someone's words prior to the act can possibly determine whether it is a crime or not. The number of people per day or per year who died as a result of Saddam Hussein over the past quarter century, BTW, is far greater than the death toll from the U.S. action to enforce Iraq's obligations. Does that make it alright that the actions of the US over the past year have led to the deaths of 8,000-9,000 Iraqi civilians? That their dictator killed more people? I don't know if this makes sense when repeated within US borders, but it sure does not outside. Would we want somebody, anybody, to come in with force if necessary and oust the Illinois governor? I don't know, would you? Maybe you guys would get together and bring him down yourselves. Even if you did get outside help in bringing down the Illinois governor, you would probably want them gone immediately afterwards. You would not appreciate an occupation of your state just because you are happy the governor of Illinois is gone. Especially if your state has lots of underground riches the control of which might appeal to the "outside help". I see that you are thinking of this in terms of "They had a dictator, and he probably had weapons, so we took him out. And he killed more of them anyway, so it's OK." but the issue is a bit more complicated than that. What is interesting to me at this point, really, is what you feel, as an American citizen, about Bush administration's misleading marketing of this war? You know, all that "Saddam has tons and tons of WMDS. We KNOW where they are." or "Saddam is linked to Al-Qaeda" etc. Assuming for a minute that something really had to be done about Saddam. Do you feel that: (1) invasion and subsequent occupation was the only way? (2) it is OK that the administration capitalized on the security fears post-9/11 and creatively marketed their invasion plans to the American public through unproven allegations of Saddam-Al-Qaeda links, Nigerian documents, and exaggerations of the situation?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (12276)	1/21/2004 8:42:55 AM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

The stomach to do something about it was not as universal, but France is never really up to that task. The only difference with Bush is that he was willing to do something about it, and many in the rest of the world fear that willingness should their friends want to pursue a similar path. They view the past and its lessons differently. First, I do not care what France does or does not as it has been proven beyond doubt that they are irrelevant so, for now let's just leave them out. Your comment above tells me that "doing something about it" then would lead us all to believe that the US President will finally resolve the problem of Saddam. (as it has) This, assuming there are no other motives, would resolve the short term problem. That is what the above tells me. (which then leaves me wondering.... what are US troops doing over there ... still] I ask... how does the US "stomach" being part of the problems in the first place... again, by supporting these dogs in the first place ? Where is the "remorse and stomach" that "forced" this President to act and invade now, back then ? My question is specific. How does the public feel about these rogue policies that the US --at free will-- can support whatever gorilla happens to be convenient, at the time, place them in power, and then leave them to their own free will to perpetrate whatever the hell atrocities they dream up upon their people...? What system of checks and balances would be reasonable to impose on these "leaders" so if they misbehave, they are removed from power before The US is forced to utilize American lives as if they were a mere "commodity", in order to then invade and remove "our" bad guy? Or worse... that these assassins will NOT aim their guns and imagination.... UPON THE US (such as Bin Ladden did) Does that not sound like hypocrisy ? or stupidity ? I am interested knowing how does the people feel about that. "That" assumes the public would be informed about these "moves" of support for certain leader(s)... I mean Democracy is supposed to be where the people have a say in these matters... Right? Because if you have the "stomach" to resolve the problem such as it is now... I am more interested in a far more intelligent solution and one that it will resolve the problem once and for all and is NOT repeated over, and over, and over again... At the very least, a solution where the US does NOT become part of the problem in the first place. A solution that will stop a behavior that seems to be geared at self destruction since it flat out ignores what the rest of the world seems to think about our actions. Is it safe to continue thinking the US is meant to be the policeman of the world and whoever does not 'line up' to or ways, they will pay for their indiscretion? Does that make sense? Being the policeman of the world implies a lot more than just have an army with sophisticated weaponry to bomb the living shit of anything that moves. Ah an infrastructure... Hmm I thought the UN provided that... oh well, they are irrelevant are they not ? While the infrastructure here at home goes to hell... Would we be better off spending the billions spent in war toys, in stead of say... in R&D for alternative fuels, so the damned Middle East ceases to be within "our realm of global interest" ? as an example. oh but wait... the military provides jobs... at what [other] expense, I wonder? I am interested in finding out what do people think about that. Again I will post this link that might better explain the questions I am asking: perseusbooksgroup.com