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: i-node who wrote (207272)	10/18/2004 11:06:01 AM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1575883

Everyone who knew ANYTHING about the situation were "advocates of that view". Read what you wrote...ANYONE who disagreed with the administration's views knows NOTHING of the situation. That is a mind completely shut down to any alternative view. Plenty of people tried to counsel against the war. Including some very close to bush sr. Scowcroft was one such person. He has re-iterated that point in the last few days in an open article I posted a few days ago. There were many others. Al

To: i-node who wrote (207272)	10/18/2004 11:15:57 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1575883

Everyone who knew ANYTHING about the situation were "advocates of that view". Your statement is a ridiculous attempt at rationalization of your position. My position is that Bush had arguably the best access to information about the WMD situation, and probably put in the most man hours analyzing the information, and his conclusion was wrong. That's not a rationalization, its a fact. It's a fact, and in my mind it implies either he's not very smart (because he lead the nation to war based on a missassment of information) or he intentionally misled the country (he, like you and I, didn't really care about WMDs, he just wanted to give Saddam the boot because the world would be better off). Neither conclusion makes me want to have him in charge of my country. And they were completely wrong, as we now know. Actually, they were completely wrong about "stockpiles". There is considerable evidence of the intent to quickly reconstitute weapons plans, and, as Fox News' excellent piece last night pointed out, the UN, France, Russia, and others were totally complicit in it -- including the sale of missle components and chemical weapons components. I agree Saddam sucked, was a danger, leaving him in place was not an option, and am glad he was removed. I would have prefered a Bush-led pitch to the UN along the lines of "Saddam's regime does not belong on the planet and the Arabs must democratize, removing Saddam will improve the region and Iraq will be the beginning of either voluntary or enforced democracy for the Arabs. Either the US and UN can do it together beginning in 4 months, or the US will do it in 4 months by ourselves. This is non-negotiable, give me your answer in a week." Bush's choice instead to make the invasion based on the (we now know) non-existant WMDs has put that entire program of democratization in jeopardy, because it isn't the coalition presence in Iraq. The basis (WMDs) for the invasion of Iraq has been found to be false, so the basis to remain there for "10-20 years" as you occassionally mention in your "this is a prolonged war" discussions is significantly weakened. Doesn't that make you wonder about Bush's ability at all? I think Bush is a world hero for having removed Saddam. As I've said, everybody thinks removing Saddam was a good thing. The discussion is not about whether removing Saddam is good or not, it's about the implications of George leading the country to war based on a conclusion that was wrong. Any normal person would find that AT LEAST disappointing. I'm surprised you won't even admit that.