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: Bilow who wrote (172359)	10/12/2005 1:27:18 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Mass Murderers capitolhillblue.com By DOUG THOMPSON Oct 12, 2005, 06:20 It is time to call the war in Iraq what it really us: the mass murder by the United States of America of at least 150,000 civilians – mostly women and children. We say “at least” because the Bush administration’s propaganda machine goes to great lengths to hide the exact number of innocents who have died as a result of our invasion of the country two years ago. The warmongers who try to con us into accepting murder as a justifiable means to an end claim the invasion was a necessary part of the so-called war on terror. Bullshit. The attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan may have been necessary to flush out al Qaeda and punish those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks but, as we should have known but learned all too late, the Iraq invasion was an ill-conceived military FUBAR based on lies, manufactured intelligence and hidden political agendas. And, according to the International Red Cross, this illegal invasion of a country that posed no immediate threat to this country has resulted in the death of at least 150,000 civilians – mostly women and children – and the hands of the U.S. This number does not include the rising toll of civilian deaths from the almost daily suicide bombers – terrorists who have entered the country and have flourished since President George W. Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier in a ridiculous photo op two years ago and declared “mission accomplished.” Iraq today is a country in chaos, bordering on civil war. No amount of manufactured news generated by the Dubya’s spin masters can obscure those sad facts. More than 1,900 American soldiers have died in the war, one quarter of them members of the Reserves and National Guard. Americans who die in service to their country should, and must, be honored for their sacrifice even when their deaths come in a shameful war like Iraq. But their deaths must also be recognized as something that should never have happened. We should have learned that lesson in Vietnam but now we make the same mistakes in Iraq. How many more Americans must die to pay for George W. Bush’s lunacy? And how many more women and children must be bulldozed into mass graves to hide the true costs of an immoral invasion of a foreign land by a country that once valued life and stood for decency and morality? How many more American men and women must die in this insanity? Yes, America – like much of the so-called civilized world – faces threats from international terrorists. But invading a country when the facts did not support a President’s bias and “gut” does not make America safe. Instead, it creates more enemies and increases the threat against our way of life – a way of life threatened more by George Bush’s insanity than Osama bin Laden’s bombs. A once-respected America has become a laughing stock on the world stage. The so-called “threat” that all but shut down the New York subway system over the weekend turned out to be a hoax perpetuated by an Iraqi con man who wanted to extort money from the U.S. It’s not the first time our intelligence community has been had by a fast-talking liar with money on his mind. Other, more accomplished intelligence agencies around the world look at the many blunders by our spy agencies and shake their head. “You were never that good when it came to understanding the minds of terrorists,” says a Mossad agent I’ve known for 25 years. Another acquaintance, a career officer with England’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), otherwise known as MI-6, says his agency no longer trusts intel from the Central Intelligence or National Security Agency. “We prefer intelligence based on facts not political expediency,” he says. But let’s forget the politics, the spin and the propaganda from the invasion of Iraq. When you put all the hyperbole aside you are left with the sad fact that this is murder: Cold blooded, heartless murder of more than 150,000 Iraqi civilians – far more than the 30,000 to 50,000 Iraqi citizens estimated to have died at the hands of Saddam Hussein during his years of tyranny.

To: Bilow who wrote (172359)	10/12/2005 1:40:29 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hello Carl. Re: "The fact is that the war is not winnable and never was. To believe in a fairyland hope that it was winnable was to consign several thousand US soldiers to an early grave in a doomed effort that resulted in a larger and healthier Al Qaeda than ever before. ... You can go on and on about how we need this war in order to save Iraq from whatever, but the fact is that the mess in the country is far worse now than it ever was before we got there. You can go on and on about how victory is right around the corner, (what's the latest, that the number 3 man in Al Qaeda has been taken?) but the fact is that similar things have been told essentially constantly for 2 years and it doesn't fool anyone." So when are staunch Republicans like yourself going to come out of the woodwork and oppose not just the war, but also the elected Republicans who conceived the war, birthed it and are nurturing it? You voted Bush in based on your stated hope that he'd backtrack on the stupidity that got us into Iraq; in view of his dogged determination to compound the error with the continued support of his party don't you currently feel an obligation to actively oppose those hawks? Could you support a Democrat? Are there any moderate Republicans who are not hell bent on miracles in Iraq whom you'd support? Does Chuck Hagel have any chance to win a Republican nomination? I'll tell you what issues I'll be looking at. I'm a registered independent and I've become a one issue voter. I'll not vote for anyone, at any level of office, who doesn't express the view that the war was a mistake and that we cannot "win," unless they're running against someone who's even more pro-war. To get my full support and contributions they must express an intent to get us the hell out of Iraq on a short time line. I like Chuck Hagel but I don't believe he has any chance of getting the Republican nomination. There are just too many Republicans who see things in shallow, miracle terms to allow him to get the nod. I'd vote for Dean but not Clinton or Edwards unless they were the lesser of two evils, as Kerry was last election. I think Rudy is crooked. John McCain is honest and principled but not particularly perceptive and far too committed in Iraq for me to accept. Biden is a fool and as committed as McCain. But it's not people like me who elected the Bush Administration. How do you see your choices? Ed