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: Hawkmoon who wrote (125362)	3/1/2004 2:12:34 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "So now you're calling David Kay an F*ing liar again?" No, I'm saying that you distorted the truth when you said that David Kay "proved" that Iraq had WMD related activities. No such evidence was ever shown, all that David Kay did was say that he was convinced. Hey, if there were rock solid evidence of "WMD related activity" by the Iraqis, you wouldn't be quoting David Kay, you'd be pointing at the evidence. Instead, the best you can do is to say that David Kay says that there is evidence of it. You can't actually point at the evidence or tell me what it is. This is the same situation as before the war. The Administration claims that something is true, but doesn't provide any evidence of it. But to get back to your implication on the truthfulness of David Kay, *yes, I believe that he's a known liar,* as is the entire population of the world, with the possible exception of Jesus and a few saints. What's worse, *Kay is a member of the Bush administration, a group of people who seem to have little regard for the truth.* I do not have proof that Kay lied with regard to Iraqi "WMD activities", but on the other hand, Kay apparently doesn't have proof either. Just as with the situation on WMDs before the war, the administration may be running a scam. If Bush hadn't cried wolf on WMDs, it would be easier to believe him and his people on "WMD activities", but he's lost his credibility, so it is time for him to prove the things he claims, rather than just stating that he has "proof". I've already heard him, and you, talk for months about the fact that Bush had proof of WMDs. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (125362)	3/1/2004 2:16:00 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "And I bet you're real happy that we're going into Haiti, right?" As long as the people of Haiti welcome us and want us to stay there, and as long as we don't take casualties, I can go along with it. As far as being "real happy", I thought that Clinton was wrong to help put Aristide in power. In my opinion, Clinton did this because Clinton is, at heart, a left-winger, and Aristide was another left winger. So from a political perspective, I'm glad to see Aristide go. I think that anyone who loathes their military makes a sad ruler, and Aristide dissolved his. Frankly, I'm surprised that it took this long for the Haitians to get rid of him. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (125362)	3/1/2004 5:49:32 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

re: American soldiers in Haiti: The U.S. has had troops in Haiti, to fix something or other, in: 1891 1914-1934 1994-1999 2004 216.239.53.104 That's 37 of the last 113 years. I cannot identify any lasting benefit, from any of those armed interventions, for the Haitians. Over that time period, I cannot identify any improvement, in Haitian's health, wealth, wisdom, or freedom. Or any benefit for Americans, either. I take this as proof, backed up by all evidence from this long and sordid history, that sending U.S. soldiers into Haiti never fixes anything. If someone can find a counter-example to this proof, please post it.