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: X Y Zebra who wrote (12327)	1/22/2004 7:57:57 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

do you think the US would be "rescuing" iraq were it not for 9/11? i don't. unfortunately i think we would be in year 13 of the cat and mouse game of dealing with saddam's flouting of the 1991 un security council resolution that he agreed to as a condition of ending the military action in the gulf war. Follow to the letter... please... the US made the hardest decision and executed the hardest task to rescue Kuwait and the rest of the inepts in the area... so why stop now???? What "letter of the agreement”? I have some suspicions as to why Bush (1) stopped but in reality I have NO FACTS... what I do know is that I don't CARE what was behind whatever agreement was made... it was stupid to stop. The army was there... everything was in place.... what kind of idiotic agreement can possibly make sense we've covered this ground on this thread before, we may all agree that it was stupid not to take out saddam in 1991, but i fail to understand your logic that it was good to take him out then, but not now?? not after 9/11?? will stick to my term "rescue" as I believe to be a closer term to what is happening in Iraq. Yes, to rescue the Iraqi people from the leader that was placed in power by the US. if you believe that, you are entitled to your belief however it was never the pre-imminent impetus for the war... DISARMAMENT was the impetus holding saddam accountable to the original 1991 agreements hwcn.org had he complied he would still be in power would he not? the purpose was never to "rescue" the iraqi people....although that has indeed been a subsequent benefit of removing the regime. I know it is a different world... this time, it really hit home... it happened HERE. just stop right there and read your own words.... WHY IS IT DIFFERENT ? Because the violence happened HERE. and therefore.... a DEFENSIVE posture by means of military force is necessitated. in other words we do whatever we must defensively..including preemptively against an enemy with a gathering threat, one which harbors the perpetrators of the attack on our soil. Well, do not believe me... research it yourself... Please show me the evidence that refutes the appalling record of most of these leaders.... Don’t discount my comments by saying "hyperbole" i do in fact discount the comments as hyperbole when you say that the goal of our foreign policy is to "install an assasin" pray tell.... which "assassin" do you think it is we hope to see in power in iraq? who is this assassin we seek to install...that we are willing to sacrifice american lives on the pretext of "rescuing" iraq so yes... do you REALLY believe it is the foreign policy goal to install a new iraqi "assassin" of our choosing? it's a fair question. as far as past US involvement with other dictatorial regimes. history is not always prologue after a cataclysm you simply cannot revert to historical analysis of past events as though they can be projected as some future template. so enough of the history on the failed dictatorial regimes of the past frankly, it's not worth arguing in light of the development idealogically motivated terrorists in pursuit of WMD with the US and other civilized world in the crosshairs. Would you please tell me what do you believe the US leaders attempt to accomplish with their policies... and I would appreciate if you comment on the results that history show us... only in the context of post 9/11 in a word defend. i see rogue nations with WMD and now even worse the spectre of their surrogates ..."their friends" terrorists of many stripes with the same common denominator.... who do they want to destroy? as bush said ...."They declared war....and war they got" and i feel quite comfortable with continuing to give them "war" on many different levels until they are vanquished. Is the US ready, willing and able to become the world's police? While in my eyes it is trade, industry and commerce the way to bridge differences... NOT bombs. you see this is where you go so terribly wrong in your assessment, and how you betray your acknowledgement that 9/11 is the fulcrum, the cataclysmic event that creates a new world paradigm shift...there are those islamists who have NO DESIRE for trade, industry or commerce.....they are the ones who declared the war....and we will go after them...and as demonstrated in afghanistan, and now iraq, some like libya and saudi arabia are being brought into line through other channels, so there is hope but my point is i will not see our government dispense with any means at our disposal to win this war, unfortunately that includes military force My point is... we cannot afford to continue to fight the rest of the world. If more and more people become disenfranchised as the Iraqis have become... what do they have to lose? Eventually, they will find a leader that will lead them to more of the same.... we're not trying to fight the rest of the world... only those who painted a target on our backs and are trying to kill us. to hell with them now i'm going out to enjoy dinner

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (12327)	1/23/2004 5:17:04 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

the US made the hardest decision and executed the hardest task to rescue Kuwait and the rest of the inepts in the area... so why stop now???? What "letter of the agreement”? I have some suspicions as to why Bush (1) stopped Let's hear Bush Sr out: If he had sent U.S. military forces on to Baghdad, Bush asserted in the 1998 book he wrote with Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser, "The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." If the United States announced such a goal unilaterally, he added, "We would be committing ourselves -- alone -- to removing one regime and installing another and if the Iraqis themselves didn't take matters into their own hands, we would be facing an indefinite occupation of a hostile state and some dubious 'nation-building.' " washingtonpost.com Sounds familiar?