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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (182497)	2/12/2004 4:19:02 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575707

All in all, my position is that I want the US to succeed in Iraq and get the country restored to normalcy with its own internal democratically appointed government. Fighting over whether we should have gone in in the first place is largely based on 20/20 hindsight and political debate during this election season. Obviously there are many who dislike Bush and object to his policies. I just see a difference between political rhetoric and divisive arguments that prevent the country from keeping its collective eye on the ball as to how best to solve the current Iraq situation. I guess I can agree up until this point....it may be used for political gain, this is normal and bidirectional, but the issue is very tangible....this adminstration has published a doctrine of pre-emption - the subject of much debate and the cause of a great deal of animosity, at home and abroad. That is the self granting of the right to attack another country on the presumption of a threat. At a minimum fairness would say that you act on bullet proof knowledge. To understand now that there are no WMDs -the reason bush touted for war, that the war may have been marketed to the american public, that we may have made serious mistakes, who made them, under what circumstances, what failures...all of these are crucial issues that need to be understood in their infinitesimal detail because the stakes are too high, people get killed, lose kin, come home maimed, their lives are forever changed...if in the process certain folks pay a political price, this is far less important than getting to the bottom of the matter. Al

To: mph who wrote (182497)	2/12/2004 6:09:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575707

I guess the principal difference between me and many on this thread is that I am not prepared to accept the claim that Bush "lied" to get us into the current Iraq war. What do you think happened re. the WMD and al Qaeda links? Nor am I comfortable with the notion that we are an evil war mongering nation no better than terrorists. The latter POV seemed implicit in the article Ted linked, which is what drew my initial response. Neither the article nor I accused the US of being a war mongering nation. You must be reading between the lines, or suffering from a serious case of paranoia. <g> Fighting over whether we should have gone in in the first place is largely based on 20/20 hindsight and political debate during this election season. Obviously there are many who dislike Bush and object to his policies. I just see a difference between political rhetoric and divisive arguments that prevent the country from keeping its collective eye on the ball as to how best to solve the current Iraq situation. The nation was divided before we went to war. Its the responsibility of a good leader to get his people to unite behind him. Bush did that but the reasons he used to prompt that unison have proven to be false. That makes those who were against the war, but bought Bush's argument doubly, angry. I am angry because I knew he was lying when he was lying, and that he used American nationalism, patriotism and pride to his advantage in order to get us into the wrong war for the wrong reasons. Why are you not angry? In other words, the war is a fait accompli. Let's deal with the situation we have now. In this, even Ted agreed with me. But the presidency is not a fait accompli. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Some, like Ted, hated Bush before the invasion of Iraq, and have stoked that hatred into an inferno. It didn't matter what Bush did in office. Ted would have wanted him out regardless. He's certainly free to hold that opinion. True.........I didn't like Bush from the get go; however, a good president is hard to find. Bush has done too many wrongs in my book to be a good president. ted