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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (50390)	9/28/2004 3:01:08 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 81568

"You do not have to point me to anything on what Bush said. he lost the vote in the Security Council" Actually, the UN Security Counsel voted unanimously in favor of UN Resolution 1441 where Iraq was warned of "serious consequences" for continued failure to meet all requirements of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement (UN Resolution 667). Any failure of Resolution 667 could lead to the resumption of hostilities. No doubt you are referring to France's threat to veto any future Resolutions. Germany & Russia also indicated they would abstain or veto too. Now we know why. France & Russia were taking bribes from Saddam in the (UN sponsored & monitored disaster) Oil-forFood scandal. France & Russia also had been selling illegal weapons to Iraq for years in direct violation of Resolutions they voted for. France Russia & Germany also were profiting handsomely with Billion$ & Billion$ worth of vastly overpriced contracts designed to win protection for Saddam's regime. But hey, you actually think Bush "lost" a vote that never took place. That's all that matters, 'eh? "he refused to give the weapons inspectors more time" Saddam had 12 long years of utter defiance of 18 UN Resolutions. Saddam was given far too much time. Resolution 1441 was passed in November 7th of 2002. Saddam almost immediately began to violate it. He continued to violate it until March of 2003 when Bush determined that Saddam had no intention of ever complying. Those are irrefutable facts. FWIW, this also disproves the canard about Bush's "rush to war" "as the inspectors were on the ground from day 1 he mobilized the US military thereby signaling that he did not care what the weapons inspectors found" Those troops were there to make it painfully clear that we meant there would be "Serious consequences" for Saddam's failure to fully & immediately comply. Saddam thought his bribes would protect him. He was dead wrong. And so was your revisionist world view. "he was obsessed with Iraq from the day he took office." That canard has been thoroughly debunked nine ways to Sunday. Read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report if you have any doubts. "These are events that took place. They are facts." If you are talking about what I have provided to you, I completely agree. The actual events & the facts I have presented thoroughly discredit your revisionist world view. "I just see the events unfold in front of my eyes and make my own conclusions and do not fall for any spin." You see what you want to see. I rely on verbatim quotes, in proper context from each the principals involved, plus credible accurate facts to draw my conclusions. I will alter my POV as time & events unfold rather than cling to an ideologically inflexible POV that forces folks to revise history to make it fit. As you can see, the facts & verbatim quotes I provided prove I am correct.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (50390)	9/28/2004 4:24:42 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Hey Chinu...This guy, wstera, banned me from his thread for this: Bold is me... "I take exception to a poorly planned and executed war in Iraq, when we should have been going after Al Qaeda." The war itself was an astonishing success. The aftermath could have gone better, but it is by no means a failure. Despite BS liberal media spin, DNC & Kamp Kerry protestations, most of the country is safe & far better of now than before. The few bad areas are allowing our troops to send terrorists to their 72 virgins in large numbers over there, rather than here at home. It could be better, but it could be far worse. "Can you get this through your thick skull? Or will you cut and paste one more time from some folder you have bookmarked?" Read the thread header. Personal attacks are not tolerated. See you in a few days. ******************************************************** Hey maybe the guy does have a thick skull...and I truly offended him. I mean he thinks that the war was a success...would someone please tell him...the war ain't over! Anyway...seems to me that if he has personally attacked you...then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Orca