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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (94941)	1/27/2005 10:42:51 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"Bush already said that he would be "disappointed" if the Iraqis elected themselves a theocracy, but he didn't say he'd veto such a plebiscite." Are you suggesting he should "veto such a plebiscite"? Do you think that's really a good idea, or even a practical one? Bush has made it clear that he does not want to impose a western-styled system on anyone, but rather to enable free Iraqis to create a democratic system of THEIR choosing and design. You can lead a horse to water, but ... BTW, your notion that Bush might consider a "veto" of an Iraqi election exposes your presupposition that Bush's intent was to control Iraq - i.e. "empire build" - rather than simply to free it. "I don't see how you can possibly think that a draft is out of the question. IF the Bush administration decides to go after Syria and Iran (and then North Korea starts pulling some shenanigans), I think we could then see China make a move on Taiwan... We are simply spread too thin and our forces are too poorly trained ..." "Begging the question" - The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. BTW, our forces are the best trained in the world. Where do you come up with the notion that "our forces are too poorly trained"?