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: John Soileau who wrote (128573)	4/7/2004 11:15:44 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<I have yet to encounter even one person, across the political spectrum, who does not "support out troops". Of course we all do! That isn't even close to the issue. What's not at all universal is support for the politicians who sent them there. Conflating the two, too often seen here, is the most irritating rhetorical device on this thread.> I could not agree more. The second most irritating rhetorical device is to conflate opposition to the war in Iraq with approval, or at least lack of strong disapproval, of Saddam or terrorists. My position on the war is that it was an unwise military action, founded on bad intelligence and bad use of that intelligence, poorly planned, and made infinitely more costly in every sense by its unilateral character, and, in the end, does nothing for national security except to undermine the war on terror and reduce our ability to work closely with key allies. At no point will you find those who oppose the war doing so in support for terrorism or Saddam. The same goes for most people in terms of "liberalism" and "pacificism". The war in Iraq harms our national security and does so at great cost. That is the reason I opposed it from the day Cheney started "selling" it to our allies in the months following 9/11.