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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (186987)	4/24/2004 1:50:52 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

Based on their combined comments, a reasonable person could conclude that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US and that an attack could happen at any time. And such an attack most likely would be leveled at American cities where it would do the most damage. Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't say or even strongly hint that massive Iraqi WMD attacks directly on the US could occur soon. They talked about how Saddam was exploring ways to attack the US, they even talked about specific methods that he might use, but that isn't the same thing. Also if they where going to "blow up American cities", that implies nuclear weapons. The scenarios that the administration talked more about where things like giving chemical weapons to terrorists. No, they never said "massive".......now you're changing my text. I posted what they said. They speculated that Saddam would attack the US. Its what people who have an agenda do to create fear in other people. Having heard what Cheney et al said, its human nature to take that info and embellish upon it. I knew what they were doing back then and I am amazed they have gotten away with it to date. They shouldn't have.........some day, I hope they get prosecuted for the role they played in this travesty. You may consider this reversal to be humorous but its what I experience all that time from neocons. I don't see it from neocons any more then any other political group. Also I think you misuse the word neocon. It come to be a word liberals (or other anti-conservatives) use to mean a more extreme version of conservative but neocons don't have to be extreme at all to be neocons. I know exactly what the definition of neocon is, its origins and its current manifestation. Case in point is the inflammatory comments by Bush leading up to the war. I'm not making it up....and others agree with me. If you want to say Bush's comments where inflammatory and inaccurate I'm willing to listen and might agree. If you want to say that they where lies, then I would need a lot more convincing but I would still be willing to talk about the idea, esp. if the conversation was done with more light then heat and based on specific strong arguments that directly indicate lying rather then merely mistakes or even incompetence. Also there is different levels of lying, if you want me to react strongly against the alleged lie it would have to be shown to be more then the usual political spin and exaggeration that probable every modern president has engaged in. Tonite, I stayed in and watched Dateline. They were discussing a missing person, a teenage girl in TX. During the ensuing investigation, some state appointed officials [an attorney, social workers, etc] got involved and by the time they got done, they had a satanic cult kidnapping the girl, torturing her and then killing her. How they did that was by taking the flimiest of evidence and releasing bits and pieces out to the press over a period of months......within a couple of years the whole town was turned upside down and the townspeople were believing that Satan himself had been involved in the girl's kidnapping. Eventually, the truth won out and people learned that the state appointed investigation team secretly believed they were God's messenger on earth and that they had uncovered a Satanic cult. The fact they couldn't find any evidence of the cult's operation did not deter them.......in fact, that convinced them that Satan was involved.......he caused all the evidence to disappear. I believe Bush and company did a more sophisticated version of what this TX investigation team did. I believe he mixed lies with a little truth like they did and frankly, I believe he and his collaborators are as evil as the people on this investigation team. Now you can believe what you want to believe.......that's your perogative. However, I will continue to believe that Bush knowingly lied to us and started a war over very flimsy info. And I also believe he see's himself as God's messenger on earth.........and that frightens the bejezus out of me. If you think I am blind about something and actual want me to see it you might be able to but you can't start with the assumption that any reasonable person will agree with your biases (rather then mine or neither of ours) or your version of the facts. Actually lay out the argument in detail and try to make explicit all the premises and you might actually make me see something you think I was blind to. Of course when your premises are explicit and the focus is on logic not merely rhetoric you open yourself up to counter arguments every step of the way. Each step of the argument has to be established. But if they are solid and the premises can not be refuted or even said to be in doubt then you pretty much win the argument and the other person is forced to concede if he or she cares about logic at all. More likely there will be a point of disagreement, and important premise that you think is true and they think is false, but even then progress will have been made. You will understand exactly where you disagree and why. Each person will know what the other person really thinks and will be less likely to wonder "how could they be so blind as to not notice this obvious point". Tim, I have given you so much detail on this issue, its incredible. Every time I present something, you discount it. Its the equivalent of DR denying he accused Clinton of rape. Frankly, I don't think there is anything that will convince you. You all are so sure you are right that even when you are not, you won't admit. As for my bias, it wasn't bias that determined that Bush was lying about the WMDs et al...........I could tell just by his body language and the way he presented it. That's why its very frustrating for me to deal with you a year later on the issue with you claiming that I am exaggerating.......even with all the evidence to the contrary. I knew Bush was lying a year ago. You want to believe otherwise, do so but don't expect me to be as naive or simplistic as you are. For the record I do think the situation in Iraq is a mess but I don't think it is an irresolvable mess or a disaster (again other then in the sense that any ongoing war, or any situation that causes the deaths of hundreds of Americans (and thousands of locals) can be said to be a disaster). That's your bias again.....not only is it a disaster, worse.........they don't know how to resolve the matter. After a year there, they still don't understand why the people are angry and upset. Its unfathomable to me they could be bungling this as bad as they are........and Americans are dying and getting maimed on a daily basis because of their poor planning and incompetence. If we have another year like the last year, and then another several years where things gradually get better then the sacrifices in Iraq will have been worth it IMO, even if you only consider the interests of the US, they will have been even more worth it if you consider the fact that tens of millions of Iraqis will have been freed from Saddam. There is nothing that can happen in Iraq that will convince me that it was worth it........even if there is democracy eventually which I strongly doubt. I'm interested in knowing how much of your opposition about Iraq is do to your opinion about how bad the war will go and how much is a matter of principle. If you knew that the fighting in Iraq would be over before the end of the year and that before the end of the decade a stable democratic government would run the place would you still vilify Bush for invading Iraq? Yes, I don't believe that you can make people do something they don't want to do. I don't think the majority of the people in Iraq give a rat's ass about democracy. I don't think Iraq is ready for democracy. I think Iraq will remain in a somewhat chaotic state for years to come......much like Serbia and Kosovo. Furthermore, I think we are now stuck there for years........losing people and paying through the nose. I will tell you that if the situation in Iraq turns as bad as some of the people on SI that I have debated with seem to think that I will say that Iraq has been a mistake, at least in execution. I suspect that some time next year, you will be admitting that it was a mistake. ted