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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (128595)	7/30/2005 8:23:07 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 793790

There is something to be said for #2: eyes are on the voting public, I agree. Not so sure I agree with end. With regard to #1: After this administration ends, it will be interesting to find out what the generals really thought and the exact role of Rumsfeld. It will all come out. There are also some positive unplanned developments, too: a changing attitude among citizens of Muslim nations about extremists and democracy; the realization that the so-called "Arab Street" didn't really exist; the changing realities in Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, and Iran (some minor, some major, but all with great potential). These are fragile things, for sure. The "insurgency" is a small subset of the larger Sunni population. The suicide bombers we hear so much of are almost entirely not drawn from that insurgent base: they are foreign nationals. It seems to me the longer the Sunnis hold out on making a deal, the less likely they will like the result, because, if you are right, and we are preparing to declare victory and go home, and this insurgency continues, Sunni Iraqis are quite likely to become extinct. Sorry, have to go.

To: neolib who wrote (128595)	7/31/2005 6:28:20 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

If Iraq ends up a free democratic nation which is aligned toward defeating terrorists in the Middle East, then I will take that outcome in a heart-beat and see our actions as a tremendous success. Strange how so many on the left who predicted only gloom and doom are now shifting to nirvana or complete failure. There appears to be a mindset in the liberal halls of America which is trying to re-write history; it goes something like this...The Administration and those who supported the Afghanistan/Iraq war, believed the fight against terrorism was going to be a short one and not cost many lives. Using "insurgent" as liberals so often do as the overriding description of the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, doesn't change the nature of the enemy. The killers in Iraq are terrorists. They are killing more of their own Muslim brothers, sisters and children than Americans or allied forces combined. And they are killing them on purpose. In other words, they are seeking out the most vulnerable and innocent and often blowing up children in front of their fathers, mothers and family members. If these actions don't define the word "terrorist" in leftists corners than nothing will. Many of them come from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other locations in the Middle East. They are coming to Iraq for notoriety, for vengeance, and because they understand a free and democratic Iraq prospering in the heart of the Middle East will deal a crippling blow to their cause of jihad. Why so many liberals insist on given these terrorists a status symbol name such as insurgent mystifies me. Perhaps they are hoping for them to topple the freely elected government in Iraq and replace it with a theocracy. Perhaps they are secretly wishing Saddam was still in power murdering thousands of innocent people to maintain his grip on power. Or perhaps, they are so short-sighted and full of hatred for Bush and the Republican party, they would rather have us lose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and turn the Middle East into a theocratic breeding ground of terrorism for another 50 years then see complete victory. Tough to tell, even tougher to understand.

To: neolib who wrote (128595)	7/31/2005 8:17:12 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

let's express a little more about the others... state department loaded with dnc supporters who wanted it to fail. Wasn't Iraq turned over to state department for control after the war. Was it pentagon responsibilities to plan for political action after winning the war or should it have been state department to put a plan into action. Since most of the state appeared to be fighting bush all the way to leave everything as it is,mode.. vs go into Iraq. i doubt they helped much,, certainly Powell never gave much support from staying in his seat back home vs traveling around the world to build consensus. remember Powell who took over state job but said he didn't want to travel? The state department as i recall had more negative leaks to nyt, and others, it appeared we were fighting two wars one with Iraq and one with State Department. Of course we had a generation of cia who's noses were out of joint because they didn't know a thing about what was going on in the world.. and i assume most of them were stationed in embassies. kind of chummy jobs for them and bush says let's stop Saddam before he gets nukes up and while he keeps feeding cash to suicide bombers and supporting Al. Q. with training camp in north of Iraq testing poison gas etc. It must have upset their foreign relations with these countries back a hundred years... Who does Bush think he is? Now the above may be complete exaggeration of facts but so is it blaming administration for planning every action going into war. It would be great if the press would move on and support our troops, the kennedy's dubins, dodds, etc started to contribute something in congress than block everything.