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: Hawkmoon who wrote (172256)	10/10/2005 7:41:50 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Will you take responsibility for the thousands (tens of thousands?) who will die as a result of the civil war that will follow? Not sure why. We don't take responsibility for the tens of thousands or Iraqis that have died since the US strolled in looking for WMD. How will that play out on CNN and Al Jazira?? CNN probably won't cover it very much. You don't see coverage of the Sudan or Chechnya. If the US isn't "involved" Americans don't care and CNN doesn't care. Al Jazeera...since when did we care what Al Jazeera covers? I saw an interesting comment about Al Jazeera the other day. Many Arabs consider Al Jazeera to be too pro-American. How will that play out on the "Arab Street". How is the situation now playing out in the "Arab Street"? It's been reported that Zarqawi is sending insurgents to other countries to use their newly developed skills. Iraq has become the largest terrorist training camp in the world. And what kind of signal will you send to the Al Qai'da folks who suddenly discovered that people like you don't "have the belly" for their kind of suicidal warfare?? Do you think they will leave us alone?? They certainly aren't going to leave us alone if we stay in Iraq. Iraq is a recruiting tool and it's a better recruiting tool for the terrorists than it is for the US. It's not a question of will they leave us alone, they won't either way. It's a question of how many terrorists you're going to have to deal with. And there's every indication that the war in Iraq has created more anti-American sentiment and more terrorist than we would have had without going to Iraq. If you're going to fight terrorism, do you prefer more or fewer terrorists? In the mean time, what does the rest of the world do for energy? Can they afford the type of energy "Mahattan Project" your talking about? Manhattan Project is a bit over the top. Brazil initiated a program back in the 70's to be energy independent and they are. Plus, we get most of our oil from Canada. It probably doesn't make sense for the US to build more refineries. While that is a bottlneck in US supply, expanding the capability merely enables more consumption and more dependence. Higher gas prices drive the consumer to more effecient use. SUV sales have plummeted and there's a high interest in hybrids. That's good. ...on our brilliant strategy in Iraq. I saw that we released 1,000 prisoners from Abu Graib for Ramadan. Mostly Sunnis. The US said none of them had committed any violent acts/crimes. They were detained for months. Once they signed pledges to be nice Iraqis they were released. Can you tell me why we were detaining those 1,000 Iraqis for months without any charges? Do you expect that those 1,000 Iraqis and their families are now pro-American because they were released? Is the commander expecting thank you notes from them for the hospitality extended at Abu Graib? jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (172256)	10/10/2005 9:54:33 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Be glad to. Won't be any worse than things are now. Out now. And Hydrogen is an energy loser. Wrong way to go. And way too late; we are at the plateau of peak oil. We are entering the game way too late.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (172256)	10/10/2005 10:36:55 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Um. Not that I want to echo your other responders, but just because I'm sort of into harping on the ironies of whatever the hell W's obscure one true version of "personal responsibility" means, who do you think is actually responsible for the mess W's war has made of Iraq? Tens of thousands have died already, maybe hundreds of thousands, except we don't do body counts except when it serves some W PR purpose of the moment. And what's going on now looks close enough to a civil war too, to the point that some kind of breakup now looks almost optimistic. So, there's going to be a constitutional referendum this week, and W's handlers and PR operators are no doubt gearing up for another "W is right, things are going really well in Iraq" propaganda campaign to go with it. But if the past 23 or so W Iraq happy talk PR offensives are any indicator, things will continue to devolve on the conventional reality front, regardless.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (172256)	10/10/2005 12:14:30 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Will you take responsibility for the thousands (tens of thousands?) who will die as a result of the civil war that will follow?" --------- This is what the rightwing argument has come down to? We lied about this war, we ignored the professional military's opinions about this war, we continued to gloss over the problems about the war, we ignored and still ignore the massive corruption and cronyism of this war and now.... YOU WANT TO BLAME IT ON PROGRESSIVES? Nope, this doesn't wash. It's time for the rightwing of this country to stand up and take responsibility for this war and all of its outcomes from the first lie to the end.