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: Amy J who wrote (187203)	4/28/2004 7:06:16 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572507

Amy, re: It's also concerning because Americans overall tend to be a here-and-now crowd. They get this news and they might say enough - and want to pull out - and the result might even be more Iraqi's killed just like what reportedly happened when the USA pulled out the first time and abandoned their supporters. For years, one of the arguments against pulling out of Vietnam was that there would be a bloodbath. It sounded logical at the time... but it didn't happen. I have no idea what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq... that would be for the Iraqi's to decide. We got SH, there are no WMD's. Iraq is not a threat to the US; we should get out. Instead we are involved in an open-ended fuzzy mission without definition. John

To: Amy J who wrote (187203)	4/28/2004 10:34:13 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572507

It also implies the USA is murdering 10,000 people per year. Your use of the term "murdering" is offensive to any sensible person on this matter. To say we are "murdering" people is to make the Bush administration complicit. Some civilians are dying in a war. That isn't murder. The United States has consistently used extraordinary means to avoid civilian deaths. You may not agree with the war. But to call these casualties of war "murder" is to effectively label the United States as "murderer" anytime it uses its power to liberate a people, as civilian casualties are ALWAYS a cost of significant military action. The view of this war as being somehow illegitimate is entirely wrongheaded and naive. I know it has been reiterated ad-nauseum, but: - Saddam was in violation of the terms of a ceasefire agreement he had executed in order to stop the previous pounding by the United States military. The day he welched on that deal, the pounding should have restarted, mercilessly. The fact that we had a weak president at the time simply deferred the action that should have been taken. - Saddam had committed to allow unfetterred access by weapons inspectors which had not been done since he effectively ejected the weapons inspectors. Again, this was grounds for restarting the previous pounding and was not done because of our temporary weakness. - Saddam had committed to NOT ONLY destroy its WMD, but to PROVE it had done so. We don't know whether he destroyed it. But he damned sure didn't PROVE it. This, alone, was sufficient grounds for us to have restarted the war. - Saddam was assisting Palestinian terrorists and providing aid to their families. In the Global War on Terror, there was no exception for Palestinian terrorists. Support for Palestinian terrorists is support for terrorism, and subjected Saddam to attack. - All that said, it is immaterial what Saddam did or did not do. Had he done none of the above, if our nation's leadership determines that the best way to avoid a future terrorist attack is to destroy Iraq from top to bottom, it is his duty to level it. Period, end of story. There are to be no further considerations. His function in life is and should be to protect Americans. If replacing Saddam with a democracy is the best way to do it, it really doesn't matter whether he was involved in 9/11. Fundamental to this concept is the view that there should be no limits to which our president would not go to protect even one American life.

To: Amy J who wrote (187203)	4/28/2004 10:56:23 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572507

>I think the USA needs to communicate its plans better. What exactly is the govt's plans to get Iraq back onto their own feet, with some semblance of self-government? To what extent have we mitigated terrorist threats by attacking Iraq, if at all? No real plans -- that's why it's a quagmire... NOT to be compared to Vietnam, the scale is much, much different. And I don't believe that we're mitigating terrorist threats at all. I'm not quite sure we're making things worse, as many claim, but we're not making things better, and we're losing American lives and billions of dollars (which could've gone to help save Social Security, or build a universal health care system, etc). -Z