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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (37549)	2/17/2005 9:34:45 AM
From: John Sladek	Respond to of 173976

Peter, American forces had removed the Iraqi government, it was America's responsibility, as the occupying power, to provide security. Where were the Iraqi Police during the looting?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (37549)	2/17/2005 11:49:34 AM
From: saints122	Respond to of 173976

Can you honestly try to hold Republicans responsible for the military budget shrinking every year under Clinton? ROTFLMFAO When you tell a lie as a question, it makes you feel good. That is if you get an answer.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (37549)	2/17/2005 5:40:04 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

>>>PT: The folks who were looting those buildings were unarmed PD: Remember LA several years ago. The people looting were also MOSTLY unarmed. Where were the Iraqi Police during the looting? If Saddam had not turned the police into an anti people force they might have stayed on the job. The fact remains that the coalition did not commit enough troops to secure the entire country from attack. Plans in war evolve. It is much easier to be an armchair general than to command and have every move dissected by critics.<<< How many unarmed looters, during a condition of war, would even want to square off against US trained personnel sporting machine guns, missle-fired rockets, tanks, pistols and rifles, etc. I find it laughable that you don't think the US could have protected the Iraqi public buildings that housed public records for citizenry. Especially since a democracy was supposedly part of the overall plan! Stop being dumb on this issue, will ya? >>>PT: Congress gave no authority whatsoever for Bush to move American troops into Iraq in order to establish a democracy. PD: That is implied. Did they authorize the military to establish anarchy? Would it be in the best interests of the world to establish anarchy in Iraq?<<< Implied? Now, you're reaching Peter! Really, really reaching!!! Congress presented a resolution for America to defend itself. America wasn't defending itself from anarchy in Iraq; America supposedly, was defending itself from weapons of mass destruction. Get this clear: Congress passed no resolution to enable Bush to move into Iraq to establish a democracy!!! >>>PT: Interesting how you [want] to blame the Dems for clear GOP... mistakes. PD: Can you honestly try to hold Republicans responsible for the military budget shrinking every year under Clinton? ROTFLMFAO.<<< I belive it was Bush's dad who began the military cutbacks. Furthermore, no president should inadequately send American troops into battle and this is precisely what Bush, wrongfully, did! There was a clearcut reason why Bush replaced the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You see, they didn't agree with the GOPwinger invasion plans; there were no plans of Democrats for them to disagree with. Peter, admit it. For the purpose of this debate you're a classic revisionist. Please check your facts! >>>PT: Sorry, pal. ... you can't get any of this right. Can ya? PD: Wrong. I am not your pal, and your expressed attitude is unlikely to lead in that direction. While I have several friends of different political stripe than myself, none of them are intolerant partisans. Your post is based on spin and misrepresentations.<<< I actually meant "pal" in more a friendly way than an unfriendly way. However, rereading what I wrote I see how you construed what you did. The true fact of the matter is my positions are referenced; yours are not. [See SI threads: Stop the War and DON'T START THE WAR] >>>PT: All I saw from the post to which I'm responding to were excuses and distortions of fact. PD: The above quote describes your post perfectly.<<< Again, it's my belief that you are making excuses for President Bush's mistakes. And most polling agree that he's mishandled his foreign affairs, especially with respect to Iraq. I suggest you get on the right side of this issue.