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: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:30:40 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"You sucked me in for one last post ... Everyone is responsible for their own sucking. If that is not stated in the thread header it should be.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:33:29 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"We said we had to invade Iraq so it wouldn't "become" a haven for terrorists and now we say we must stay so it doesn't "remain" a haven for terrorists-what changed? I remember some speeches in which the likely hood of turning Iraq into a magnet for terrorists was addressed. Do you remember the phrase, 'Bring em on'?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:39:05 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"We totally misunderstood and misjudged the religious fervor, politics and strong nationalistic strength of the Iraqis. I had a pretty good background of understanding. The degree of understanding varied prior to our involvement. Most people I talked to were unable to distinguish between Saddam and OBL at the time and were even less clear on the dynamics of the culture. The level of understanding has improved in America. There are people here strongly opposed and some strongly for supporting the changes in Iraq. "We were wrong when we said that as a nation they would eagerly accept what we considered America's "help." Even stronger opinions understandably exist in Iraq. It is not one view point as your left wing talking points suggest.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:41:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"We were wrong when we said that we could identify and destroy those who were opposing our great military power in Iraq. We were wrong when we said that insurgents would garner insufficient support in Iraq to wage an effective insurgency. We were wrong when we said things would "turn" when we handed over what we called sovereignty, when we captured Hussein, when we destroyed Fallujah, when they adopted an interim constitution, when they held elections, when they knew we meant business...the list goes on and on. We were wrong when we said that we could change their centuries old ways of intolerance and prejudice through force of arms and written documents that were largely dictated by our diplomats. I don't know who this 'we' is you keep referring too. Are you in a secret club?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:45:35 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The assumption that staying the course means winning. Thats an important lesson, i.e., that sometimes attempting to "stay the course" just means you're going to pay a higher price to discover that your power to dictate the lives of the people of another nation is very limited." I am not a win/lose thinker, that is your assumption not mine. Apparently you also do not value the ideas of social evolution... toward liberal democracy and away from tyranny. You might take a little look at all the struggles against social injustice since the beginnings of recorded history. In one form or another noble human beings have fought and died successfully to move us forward in that struggle. Of course there have always been nay sayers too, so you don't have to worry about being unpopular.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:47:03 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"But you don't want to go there ... I doubt you have any clue as to what I want or where I want to go.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:52:37 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"This is a war of competing ideas and the men and money we're squandering in Iraq are not winning us any ground in the war of ideas; not here at home, not in the rest of the world and, for damn sure, not in the middle east. Bad ideas are not killed with bullets, they're killed with better ideas and, or, failed social experiments. Nonsense. The struggle against social injustice has always required noble human beings to stand up and have always been hard fought.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:55:56 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I'll give you some facts... Many of those "terrorists" had no involvement with terrorism before we invaded. How do you know that? While it could be true because our involvement has had a duration of two and a half years, I've seen no factual evidence that our presence in Iraq itself is creating terrorists. That is the assumption of the anti-Bush folks. Of course the pro-Bush explanation is that the occupation is drawing terrorists to a single theater for engagement with our military.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (169946)	8/26/2005 6:57:24 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

"So go ahead and hope that things will "turn" and ignore the realities, but don't expect the American public to be silent much longer. The American Public can stand up as noble human beings who have been blessed with great power and wealth in this generation, to use those blessings to promote liberty and peaceful coexistence in the world... or they can close their windows and lavishly spend on themselves, surrendering to the forces will eventually enslave them. I know your choice. Thankfully, you don't speak for everyone.