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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (22561)	12/10/2004 10:17:29 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 90947

suma, saddam had it under control because if you stepped over the line ,you were tied to a street pole and had your tongue cut out. You would stay there for days so everyone could see what happen. Should we run Iraq that way?? I heard Imus, that kid was an idiot or just a kid, same thing

To: Suma who wrote (22561)	12/10/2004 10:35:46 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

Suma, I have no doubt that soldier had difficulty figuring out who to trust on the streets in Iraq, but that hardly means everyone he saw wanted to kill him or that they all want us gone. But more importantly, why on earth would you think that the average soldier, particularly a caller to Imus, would be well equiped to judge that "There will be a Civil war regardless whether we stay or go"? The fact is that there is going to be an election in a month and a half. Nothing like a nation picking its own leaders in a free election to turn a population off to would-be dictators like the Baathists and Islamist terrorists. BTW, after that, IMO, our troop involvement there will slowly decline over the next year to an Afghanistan-like presence and then any significant presence will end by our next election, if not sooner. But that's just my prediction.

To: Suma who wrote (22561)	12/10/2004 12:11:51 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Both the armor "issue" and the stop loss issues are non starters...intended solely to cast Bush in a bad light. Stop loss has been a policy of every major military engagement we have ever prosecuted.....such as the Bosnian conflcit, 91 Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, etc.....The reasons for such policies are obvious.... The armor situation is that currently 78% of the HUMVEES in Iraq are armored...production of armored HUMVEES has increased from 15 to 500 per month.....the Pentagon has always been slow to respond to production requirements of this nature... Some good examples of prior situations which are similar are...lack of sufficient armor on Sherman Tanks in WWII, rectification of operational deficiencies with M-16s in Vietnam in that era, etc.... American soldiers have always adapted and overcome such problems before....(witness the ingenuity of the troops who added armor and hedgerow cutting attachments to tanks and other vehicles in the battle for Europe....) When the 82nd was deployed to SA in 1990......all they had was small arms and light antitank weapons.....not a good position if Saddam had actually invaded..... still the mission had to be done.....it took over a year to build up to a point where our offensive preparation and capability rendered the liberation of Kuwait feasible... Bottom line, is the armor situation is being addressed....not that Bush or Rumsfeld don't care.....the rest is just more pinhead nonsense.... J.

To: Suma who wrote (22561)	12/11/2004 12:39:48 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

What is radical about reality? Why is it demeaning to post honestly & accurately about someone? And how does being reality based make someone not moderate? I'd really appreciate your honest answers Suma. " find you as radical as those you demean by naming them. You are not moderate nor are they."

To: Suma who wrote (22561)	12/11/2004 1:24:51 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

So you listen to one person talk about one or two areas of concern & that is proof that everything about Iraq is horrific & we are wrong to be there? Are you certain this person was being truthful? What facts can you confirm independently from this one persons interview? And what other facts about the armor issue can you confirm that proves the Bush Admin screwed up? Again, I think you search for only opinions & perceptions that confirm what you want to believe. What you don't do is confirm whether or not your sources of information are factual or accurate. That is why you are so willing to dismiss any & all factually accurate information that runs counter to your pre-existing world view. And that is where you & I differ. Like you, I am biased, but I readily admit I am. Unlike you, I want to know the whole story. I want the unvarnished truth. I want to know what really is going on so I can form reality based opinions, not politically biased ones. That is because I am not inflexible about my political ideology. As time & events unfold, I am willing to change my POV so that it continues to be reality based. And that includes how I decide who I am going to vote for. I have no strong allegiance to any political party. That is a cold, hard fact. I will vote only for those who are going to represent me & my country the best regardless of political party. So yes, we approach our politics from a radically different perspective. I don't think my approach is radical at all.