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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (163869)	6/8/2005 9:27:04 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Just because people are morally opposed to war does not mean that the war is an impeachable action. This political scapegoating serves nothing but political gain by the liberal press. I could write 50 articles a day to say that the removal of the world's most vicious dictator was not supported by a hindisght review of the WMD. However, all of the WMD were probably removed before the discovery of the evidence. Who knows? Obviously, alot of people care. It is ironic that so many people are concerned about the injustice of Bush's premise for leading the case against SH before Congress when they show so little concern for the people being blown up by the Sunni insurgents and Sunni foreign fighters (all of which could be considered al quaeda). Where is the sense of disgust by the Shiite majority within Iraq that their Sunni brothers keep launching political attacks against their own people? The demise of Sunni power within Iraq has lead to all of the instability that is now a problem in Iraq. They are the ones leading all of the suicide bombings and executions against the people of Iraq. Where is the name calling when it comes to these destructive acts in Iraq by a minority of Iraqi nationals? Why does it all spin back to GWB and WMD? If Bush is to be responsible for all of the malicious acts of terror that followed the brief overthrow of SH, then people really need to check their sanity levels. It is an atrocity against the people of Iraq that needs our overwhelming support. Amnesty and the Red Cross need to be camped out at the hospitals in Iraq to report the severity of the loss of life of Iraqi Shiites. The press needs to serve coverage to the ongoing loss of life at a personal level within Iraq to show how the Shiites react to suicide attacks by their Sunni countymen. It seems to me that as long as we let our headlines be divided by such malicious attacks from the press, the terrorists have plenty of room to keep hurting innocent people within their own country. The frustration of this circular argument almost makes me desire political unity. Pluarality only serves to justify the unnatural division of power in a self serving system that we call democracy. Oh yeah, the alternative is totalitarianism and the implementation of a single rule. That is the essence of the dictator we just spent a trillion dollars to remove. Back to the circle of name calling. No one is ever going to make a decent point that lasts is remembered for more than 5 minutes on this thread or any other forum. The hawks will still support a war that has been over for a long time and the doves will still say the war was unjust. The only war left in Iraq is the political upheaval between the Sunnis against the Shiites and Kurds. I'll stop here before my rant circles back to the inevitable discussion of unity vs. pluralism. All I can say is that the democrats had better check their ego and disrespect for our republican leaders before they lack any political integrity whatsoever. To disagree with the legal decisions of our country is fine. To make a personal vendetta against Bush for the injustice by a minority of dissidents in Iraq is a different story altogether.