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: GST who wrote (125108)	2/26/2004 10:24:39 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Mark Lane's book on alleged atrocities in Vietnam, "Conversations with Americans", was panned by James Reston and Neil Sheehan, neither of whom were war boosters. Sheehan demonstrated that many of Lane's "eyewitnesses" either had not served in Vietnam, or had not been there in the roles claimed. When Senator Mark Hatfield inserted the Winter Soldier testimony into the Congressional Record, he had the commandant of the Marine Corps attempt an investigation. Those they spoke to largely refused cooperation, or, when cooperating, failed to provide details helpful to investigators. Also, some of the grisliest reports had come from men who were found to be imposters. As for other matters alleged of vets: 86% of those who died in Vietnam were white and 12.5% black, when blacks of the right age made up 13.1% of the population. 2/3rds if those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77% of combat deaths. The suicide rate for vets is no higher than for non- veterans. The same is true for rates of drug abuse, homelessness, and incarceration. More vets showed signs of post- traumatic stress syndrome after WWII than the Vietnam War. A comprehensive survey from 1980 reported that 91% of those who had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served their country"; 80% disagreed with the statement that the "US took advantage of me"; and nearly two out of three would go again, even knowing how the war would turn out. I got this information from an article in National Review. I have no idea if it can be accessed on- line, but I will check..........I checked, it is not yet available, as it is in this weeks issue, and there is a lag.........

To: GST who wrote (125108)	2/26/2004 10:27:38 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

DR:Now look at the eye chart and read the biggest letter you can see L, I think, or a U DR: Is this better or worse? Worse DR: Is THIS better , or worse? Worse DR: I have some good news and some bad news. Whuts that? DR: The good news is you wont need new glasses, the bad news is you are blind as bat Sig

To: GST who wrote (125108)	2/26/2004 3:36:29 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

you falsely accuse the war's critics for putting that cloud over the mission The hell I do.. I RIGHTLY accuse them of doing that... People like yourself can't see the forest for the trees.. You continue to harp about missing WMDs, claiming that Bush "lied" about them, when EVERY FRIGGIN' INTELLIGENCE SERVICE PROVIDING EVIDENCE TO THE UN ASSERTED THAT THEY PROBABLY EXISTED. EVERY ONE OF THEM pal... Every one... Otherwise, there would have been NO CAUSE to justify a 15-0 UNANIMOUS vote to declare Iraq in material breach via UNSC 1441. Reread the above two paragraphs again buster... And continue to re-read them until it sinks into your head. We can quibble about whether Saddam represented an immiment threat, but Bush never said that he did. He said that Saddam represented a GATHERING THREAT and that we shouldn't wait until Iraq became an imminent threat. He operated on the best intelligence that the CIA had available, both internally, and via interfacing with MI-5 and many other intelligence services.. And EVEN DAVID KAY ASSERTED that Iraq was falling apart and that such chaos represented a MAJOR THREAT because weapons could easily be sold to the highest bidder as Saddam's regime began to lose control.. Futhermore, David Kay stated that Saddam HAD PERSONALLY TAKEN CHARGE OF IRAQ'S CLANDESTINE EFFORTS TO PURSUE WMDS.. That Saddam HAD NOT FORSWORN SUCH EFFORTS AND WAS ENGAGED IN DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DECEPTION ABOUT THE STATUS OF HIS PROGRAMS. So where are the lies GST? Misinformation, incorrect analysis from available, by scarce facts? SURE!!! But willful and deliberate lies? I haven't seen any evidence to support that.. And if it existed, the democrats would be rallying to impeach Bush right now, if they could prove such a case.. So in the meantime, while people of your ilk try and play politics with Bush's decision making process, the mission of the US soldiers in Iraq is being undermined and their lives placed at risk. This has ALL been about politics. The same nations that claimed that we should not enforce UNSC 1441 with military force are the same ones who are now claiming they should go in and prop up Aristide of Haiti. Now where is the international threat from Haiti? Where are Haiti's WMDs? And then we can go on about Bosnia and Kosovo? Where were THEIR WMDs?? How could the UN, EU, or later, the US, justify occupying those nations with troops?? And why is it that WMDs has to be the only criteria for using military action against Saddam's regime given those two examples?? Weren't 300,000 victims of Saddam's mass genocide sufficient to declare his regime a continuing threat to peace and regional security, a condition that formed the basis of opposing Saddam in the first place?? And strategically speaking, isn't it FAR BETTER to have the Islamic Militant leadership focused upon opposing US/CPA efforts in Iraq, than having them free to pursue their operations against the US mainland?? vain effort to reshape the political landscape of the middle east into a model of US-friendly democracies Then why not just let the entire region fall into chaos? You're such a dedicated defeatist who thinks everything should a "cake-walk".. Maybe it's just a vain effort to oppose 1.3 Billion Muslims falling under the spell of Islamic militancy.. Maybe we should just surrender now and save all kinds of lives.. Better yet... why don't you just hop on over to NW Pakistan and offer yourself for surrender into the "tender mercies" of Al-Qaeda (or maybe to the Phillipines and Abu Sayaf)... I think the rest of us would rather put up a bit of a struggle first.. Hawk