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: Sun Tzu who wrote (166071)	7/14/2005 1:36:57 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Respond to of 281500

>> Going back to your question about Saudi Arabia... Let me get this straight. A bunch of Saudis, headed by another Saudi, and financed by Saudis, highjack planes and ram them into buildings. And then Bush responds by invading a secular country that had virtually nothing to do with this, while leaving alone Saudi, Pakistan, and UAE who were the only counties who recognized and helped the only government to directly support those terrorists. How much sense does that make? I've heard that even Rove was dead set against actually invading Iraq. He clearly knew enough to see that the Republican power grab following 9/11 did not in any way need Iraq to succeed. The problem is religious fundamentalism renders people like Bush or the Islamists impervious to rational thinking, and we see the result. But Americans didn't see enough of a problem with this to have decisively voted him out in the last election, so go figure. One can look on the positive side, that this variant of Republicans who are in power now are discrediting themselves with the Iraq debacle. Had they really all been as cunning and shrewd as Rove, they may well have been able to decisively control all branches of the government before the general public realized what was happening.