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: steve harris who wrote (192543)	6/30/2004 1:35:49 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576816

Steve, there's still one problem with the alternative liberals and left-leaning "moderates" propose. They, of course, want to change the war on terrorism into one of intelligence and law-enforcement. Nothing wrong with that alternative on the surface, but then we've got the huge complication (and I hesitate to call it that) of human rights. After all, it is my belief that Abu Ghraib wasn't just a bunch of sex-starved privates getting their jollies, but rather an exposure of some of the methods the CIA uses to interrogate captured soldiers and suspected terrorists. Assuming that's the case, what's going to happen to our intelligence-gathering when some of this "black art" is exposed by the "muckrakers," especially those with left-wing agendas? Also, consider the difference in law-enforcement between America and Iraq. Here in southern California, a suspect who led police on a chase was caught and beaten with a flashlight. That, of course, was caught on camera (seems like you can't do anything in L.A. without being caught on tape), and it's bringing back painful memories of Rodney King and the L.A. riots. Meanwhile, I just read about one Iraqi storeowner who saw a carjacking taking place just in front of his store. Iraqi police showed up and pistol-whipped the suspects before taking them in. Had an American done the pistol-whipping instead, you can bet every international human rights group would have a fit. I'm not advocating forsaking human rights just for the sake of security. However, I am advocating that we ought to be honest with ourselves and figure out our priorities. Simply relying on intelligence and law-enforcement isn't nearly enough if we're going to prevent another 9/11. Tenchusatsu

To: steve harris who wrote (192543)	6/30/2004 5:01:48 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1576816

>We may know this now but what did Clinton know in 1998 and Bush now before the war? Ummm... both Powell and Rice said in 2001 that Saddam was effectively disarmed and contained. >It's been tested to work. Granted it cannot stop a large China or Russia attack, but it would stop a North Korea or Iran or Germany or France taking one shot. Not what I've read, but then again, I read a lot from the "liberal media!" >Are we splitting hairs here? Clinton and Bush were convinced there were WMD in Iraq. Unfortunately we do not know the future today as Clinton and Bush did not know the future when decisions had to be made. I'm not sure. >You would keep a few soldiers with the inspectors to prevent them from being thrown out? I don't see how that would work. It ain't always easy to toss out dudes who are more armed than you are. But you're right, it's not an ideal solution. There isn't one. >You always plan for the worse and hope for the best. Seems like the media loves the 9/11 commission for saying not enough was done to prevent it, but then they are hypocrites when someone tries to do something. Patriot Act, Missile Defense Shield, Profiling, Fingerprinting aliens, closing the borders, etc. I personally like the last three, not the first two. >Not doing anything at all is not an option is it? Are you willing to wait until struck? Who's advocating doing nothing at all? There are a fair amount of degrees between doing nothing and going to war. I didn't mean doing nothing at all, I meant not having to pay at all. >I do get the impression that a lot of Kerry's position on Iraq is that he supported removing Saddam, but he didn't like the way it turned out. Well tough; life sucks then you die. I kinda do as well. His position on this isn't in accord with mine, and it feels politically motivated. >Would you advocate going to Sudan or North Korea or Iran today or when in the near future or not at all? To be honest, I'm not sure. There are definitely pros and cons for each. >Remember the polls in the beginning? An unnamed democrat would beat Bush yet any named democrat would lose. It still applies today. Kerry can't beat Bush so the effort is campaign on promoting the "anyone but Bush" play. Isn't that almost always the case up until the debates? -Z