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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (21752)	10/8/2004 9:54:06 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Suma, I'm afraid 60 Minutes, CBS and ABC have zero credibility. How hard is it to find one or two people who have an opinion, any opinion, about a subject? Just look at this thread, or read the letters to the editor in any newspaper (especially those fringe papers which are given away in larger cities). The har har har was about no terrorists when Saddam was around. It was a country ruled by a terrorist family, who slaughtered 300,000 or more Iraqis in, what, a 10 year period? Tired of reading? Try these pictures: massgraves.info Kb

To: Suma who wrote (21752)	10/8/2004 10:30:59 AM
From: Gator II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

I saw that interview with the family in Iraq who said they initially supported the US action to remove Saddam and now want the U.S. and its coalition to leave them to their own devices. I agree with Debum in his answer to your post where he implied that the CBS story was antiwar/antibush propaganda and not worthy of a detailed response. You do recognize that it was on CBS don't you? Perhaps, you trust CBS to present their version of the news in a fair and balanced way. I don't. Wasn't it Colin Powell who said if you break it (Iraq), you've go to fix it or words to that effect? Sure, we have made mistakes in Iraq. Many good men and women in our military have died because of those mistakes and some definitely poor judgment calls. That is the nature of most wars. Regardless, George Bush has chosen with the advice and consent of the people of the United States as expressed through their duly elected representives to make a real effort to change the course of history in the Mid-East. A region that is occupied by some really bad hombres who pose a threat to Western Civilization. Personally, I consider his stand visionary and courageous. Every source of information I have avaliable to me suggests that our active military fully supports our President because what he says, they know he means. It is unimaginable to me how much damage would be done to the morale of our military and its future effectiveness under a Kerry Administration coming so soon after the Clinton diaster. George Bush has risked his political future to do what others before him avoided. Their actions made what Bush has done a necessity and in my opinion, Kerry has much more blood on his hands for his strident opposition to the war during his campaign than Bush has for having responded to terrorists and taking the actions he has and that means Iraq, too. The terrorists on 9/11 declared war on us. We are at war and it was they who started it. The Bush doctrine was made perfectly clear in regard to what action we would take toward countries that harbor terrorists. Iraq was first up. As Debum has pointed out, there are compelling economic reasons for the United States to take the actions we have. Yes, our quest for a secure source of crude oil is part of that equation. Regarding terrorism, you do recall that Saddam was paying families whose children blew themselves up, don't you. I call that terrorism. No one promised that what the United States is attempting to do in the Mid-East was going to be easy or for that matter, successful. It is a high risk strategy but we saw on 9/11 the consequences of doing nothing or worse, waiting on the U.N. to take action. The U.N. would never have taken the action required to enforce it's own resolutions. If George Bush isn't re-elected, we will never know if what he has dared to do would have been successful. Regardless of all I've written in this diatribe, I would not trust CBS to shape my opinion on anything important. The future of Western Civilization and the continued leadership of the United States in the world is, to me, very important and worth the risks involved. G-2

To: Suma who wrote (21752)	10/8/2004 11:41:21 AM
From: Libbyt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

...Why don't you watch 60 minutes CBS IMO has lost all credibility. The program has been good for some of the late night jokes by Jay Leno and Letterman. I liked the skit of the opening of 60 minutes. It had the usual opening with the ticking clock, and "I'm Morley Safer", "I'm Lesley Stahl"...and then a picture of Dan Rather with duct tape over his mouth. And from the Letterman Top Ten List, I especially liked Number 3 of this Top Ten List. Top Ten Ways CBS News Can Improve Its Reputation 10. Stick to stories everyone can agree on, like cookies are delicious. 9. Move nightly "happy hour" to after the broadcast. 8. Stop hiring guys with crazy names like "Morley." 7. Can't figure out if a news story is true? Let Judge Joe Brown decide. 6. Every time Mike Wallace tells a lie he gets a life-threatening electrical shock. 5. Newsroom patrolled by some kind of lovable but strict "truth monkey." 4. If it turns out the story is wrong, give away 276 brand new cars. 3. After delivering a report, correspondent must add, "Or maybe not--who knows?" 2. Newscast consists of Dan Rather sitting down to watch Tom Brokaw. 1. Oh, I dunno, stop making up crap?

To: Suma who wrote (21752)	10/8/2004 12:41:28 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Suma, what made you come over here? As you can see from your three responses, the issue is black and white for most of these posters and their logic is circular. Don't like the message...just attack the messenger, bring up Clinton, change the subject to whether Saddam was a bad man, then repeat every wild theory to support their preferred side and claim that preserving America as we know it depends on reelecting George Bush and not that traitor Kerry. The more damaging the information is to their deeply embedded and rigidly held beliefs, the more vicious the attack on the veracity of the messenger, even when the messenger is only conveying information from another source. No matter; those who see doomsday coming with a John Kerry presidency and who insist on screaming that the Clinton presidency was a disaster for American, or, alternatively, see doomsday coming with a second Bush term, ought to take a deep breath and listen to themselves. Bush is wounded severely and has lost the support of the moderate Republican wing of the party and Kerry will have to deal with a Republican majority in the House, at least. Both will, therefor, be forced toward moderation no matter who wins. Ed