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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (43102)	4/19/2004 8:50:22 AM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 89467

That is a great post. It seems that common sense and logic goes out the window when bias takes over. I can't believe the posts and articles critical of Israel for killing terrorist LEADERS. The guy who got killed was profiled on NBC, with the commentary that he was comfortable in large crowds, knowing that Israel would not target him in a place where large numbers of civilans would be hit. Yet, Hamas boasts about how it is able to kill massive numbers of civilians with other people's Suicide Children.

To: Poet who wrote (43102)	4/19/2004 12:47:32 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

this very thoughtful post Thoughtful? Guess we have a different definitions of that term. I would have used terms like simplistic or mindless. The first three "points" are a demonstration of the bulldozer approach to solving problems. An approach that deals with the immediate while ignoring the larger consequences. Then, when the inevitable occurs the response is, "What happened?" It's "thoughtful" only if one considers a complete lack of foresight to be thoughtful. But then lack of foresight has been the hallmark of the pro-war ideologues in this endeavor. The last paragraph is ... bizarre. Let's consider it piece-by-piece. In short, IMHO we are still at War, to me War is War. There should be no let up, no sanctuary for the enemy and the objective and the safety of our troops should come FIRST. No sanctuary? Iraq is the sanctuary. You are dealing with an insurgency to expel an occupation. No matter how fractious the Iraqis are, it's one thing all can agree upon - "Throw out the occupiers." As for the safety of the troops, what about those that before the war, said that an occupation of Iraq would leave our troops with bull's eyes painted on their backs. Who was thinking about the safety of the troops then, when the war hysteria was raging? Now the only way to protect the troops from the fury of a rampant insurgency, is to withdraw them. To save innocent lives we should ACCOMPLISH OUR MISSION as rapidly as possible Ignoring the irony with the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED terminology, who are the innocents here? The women and children killed by marine snipers? The old men killed while carrying white flags? The Iraqis that have taken up arms to protect home and family from violation? How about the deluded American youth who were told they were protecting their country? Just which innocents are we referencing? These recent actions IMHO have served to lengthen the War, strengthen the enemy, endanger our troops, and generally make it miserable for everyone EXCEPT the enemy. What serves to lengthen the war, is blindly "staying the course" when the course is off a precipice. The rest of this sentence exhibits the same blindness in the initial three "points". No understanding that a "flattening" of Fallujah, and a destruction of Najaf would inflame all Iraqis, and greatly strengthen the opposition. A completely simplistic analysis. I hate to say it, but POLITICS has entered this war now Now? NOW? To not understand that politics of the most insidious sort is the root cause of this quandary is beyond naive. It's just plain dumb. and the SAME DAMN PEOPLE that caused us to LOSE in Vietnam are RIGHT THERE NOW causing us to LOSE in Iraq. Since the arehitect of the Vietnam war, Robert McNamara, thinks the venture was doomed, ab initio, because of the lack of understanding in Washington, to some extent I agree with this statement - even though it's author is again exhibiting his superficiality. So, I am coming to believe we either KICK THEM IN THE ASS, go forward with this thing right OR GET THE HELL OUT NOW. Again, the same simplistic attitude. Someone doesn't agree with you, slap them around until they do. Real depth of thought being exhibited here. I know this is long, but wanted you to see how I am beginning to turn and wonder if any of you feel the same. Long? Perhaps for someone that has difficulty in getting two thoughts - much less in putting them together. As for "feel the same", how about thinking instead of "feeling". It might lead to better results. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this is what passes for a thoughtful post on the GWB thread - considering its namesake. JMO lurqer