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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (27186)	5/19/2004 3:31:40 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 93284

So why not call them profoundly wrong instead of evil? I too get caught up in the shorthand of the moment. I tried to explain (obviously not very well) that I chose the word from the Bush lexicon where everything is divided into good or evil. Given that stark choice I had to go with evil. Using American might to promote American values used to be a liberal idea mocked by conservatives. Liberal is certainly a 'big tent' movement, but as it is practiced around these parts it generally means that ideas should flow by example, not by force. American ideas are promoted by being healthier, more flexible, and a lot more fun than competing ideas. Wolfowitz pretty much said it himself: WMD was a sales point, the main reason was to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. yes, he did say that. On the whole I think he is a liar. The troops could have been removed from Saudi Arabi simply by putting them on a ship or plane and leaving. The fact is, Saddam was not the threat he was made out to be. A few carriers could have maintained sanctions while a Ghadaffi-like rehabilitation program was completed. That situation did not have to fester for a decade, it's just that no compromise was allowed. According to Woodward's book on the first Gulf War, the first Bush administration concluded they could remove Saddam from Kuwait with or without war. What would have happened if Saddam stayed in Kuwait? He gets some admonishment and a warning that enough was enough. He'd be selling the same oil that is being sold now. There is a good chance he could have been forced out diplomaticly, but even if Kuwait became the next Iraqi province, it wasn't going to make a bunch of difference. Under those circumstances Saddam would have probably still been our pocket dictator, ready to counter Iran or temper the Saudi Oil production quotas. These things seem so important at the time! It is basicly the same neocon cast of characters who warned us of the dire consquences to giving up the Panama Canal in Carter's administration. Tell me, do you miss it now? Is there anything other than a sense of relief for not still being in Vietnam? It seems to me that all paths lead ultimately back to the longest festering problem. The situation in Israel. The Likud have been unwilling, at least since the 1970s, to compromise on a dream of annexing the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza. Even now it appears that a primary reason to evacuate Gaza is to make it a more target rich zone. Each adventure in muslim relations that does not address a solution in Israel is doomed to failure. TP