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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (45672)	3/5/2004 6:49:09 PM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 50167

I'm no way convinced that the stalemate with Saddam was coincidental based on what was presumed happening on the public side, against that which was happening on the inside--whether it be the administration of the Republicans or Democratics. I think Iraq's oil was not wanted in the market (probably due to the Saudis or some other oil-like investments elsewhere) and the stalemate thus lasted through Bush to Clinton to Bush. Whether in the market or not, control of that oil can't be ignored. Thus, the eventual invasion. Whether recognized by all, the Lewinsky matter did have an effect on Clinton's policies of Iraq. It had an effect on those Washington politicians wanting to support the president through that time. It influenced what they publicly said, and much that got said was diversionary and reactionary of the times. Hence, your find of quotes from Democrats. Still, in the ultimate analysis this war--especially the manner in which it was waged and the false reasons given for its promulgation--is and was the least desireable recourse for the good of people. If improving the world is the objective, the Iraq War was the wrong way to go. Especially when one considers the international law which both Bush and Blair ignored. Bottom line? Bush didn't care much about people's lives. He cared only for those objectives that were both inside political and economical. This war enabled, first, a theme for his presidency (war president); second, it glossed over the manner by which he got (s)elected (the illigetimacy issue); third, it cloaked over a very bad economy (blame it on the war); and, fourth, it served to reward those who groomed him to become president (hello Halliburton, Enron, Carlyle, et. al). Here, meet some of the boys! hereinreality.com Fact is, they wouldn't have pulled that aircraft carrier stunt in the world of sincerity. That was mere campaign footage for what was thought to be an easy reelection in '04. Not so. Finally, if chaos in the Middle East was Bush's desired policy, well, he did accomplish that. Should Bush remain in power, expect things to get worse.

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (45672)	3/5/2004 6:57:22 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Dear Iqbal, Re: Harnessing forces of evil with pacification is root of all tribulations, Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry clearly advocated these policies.. Somehow I'm missing something here. Sens. Levin, Daschle and Kerry were asking Clinton to take action, and yet you say that they were guilty of "pacification"? Either my reading comprehension is greatly diminished since yesterday, or you are completely twisting and misinterpreting the words of the Senators for the sake of your ideological posturing. Sorry, I ain't buying whatever it is your trying to sell with this bizarre line of rhetoric. ******** Re: Lets jointly agree to condemn those who overlooked that decree and pray that never again a death sentence will passed on citizens who are innocent, will you join me in this condemnation of enemies of Americans.. Absolutely! I'd like us to start with a condemnation of Anne Coulter, American right wing gun moll and writer, who suggested that the truck bomb that blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Tulsa, Oklahoma should have been exploded in front of the New York Times Building. I think she may be a closet anti-semite. If that isn't bad enough, she wanted to execute John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban" because it would let American liberals know that they were next. Fair enough. But it strikes me that Anne Coulter hates a lot of Americans, just the same. And while we are in the business of condemning the enemies of Americans, maybe you will join with me in condemning a faker and a tele-evangelist schemer named "The Reverend" Jerry Falwell, who knows as millions of us do that Osama Bin Laden wasn't responsible for 9/11. No, Falwell blamed the tragedy of 9/11 on the homosexuals and promiscuous liberals of America. He may be on to something. It could well be that there is a small self-loathing group inside the Pentagon and elite circles around the Bush Family who are so repulsed by what it means to be an "American" today that they decided to use the subterfuge of a faked foreign attack on symbols of American global hegemony in order to perpetrate the world's most heinous fraud and thereby be given carte blanche to strip away civil liberties from the citizenry and attack resource rich foreign lands with nary a word of opposition from the country's opinion leaders. ****** Today is the 900th day since 9/11. How is it that a giant of an Arab, walking with the assistance of a cane, since he's disabled with renal failure and in need of daily dialysis, with an entourage of several wives, many children and dozens of hanger's-on cannot be found by the U.S. military? Could it be that this CIA asset is still being protected by his mentors?