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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (46160)	10/30/2005 9:07:24 AM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Removing Saddam might have been a good idea, but is it worth $300 billion plus and 2000+ dead US soldiers? And who are you going to replace him with? George HW Bush at least had the wisdom to ask those questions, but his moron son, that dimwit putrid piece of excrement called Dumbya rushed in where wise men had chosen not to tread.

To: steve harris who wrote (46160)	10/30/2005 9:24:58 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

I sure did. We'll have to disagree on that. I don't believe that hitting the reply button and talking about something else is a response. Spit it out. You think we shouldn't have removed Saddam. Full circle again. You don't care about the rationale or the consequences. The case to invade Iraq was made on the basis of WMD. That was the case made to the UN and that was the case made to the American people. In spite of being shown wrong on all the intelligence that supported that notion. Bush chose to continue to make the case. In this alleged democracy [note that we don't tout the spreading of Republics throughout the world] it's incumbent on the President to convince the American people of the correctness of a decision to go to war. Using false information to justify the taking of human lives is morally repugnant to me and contrary to the underpinnings of a democracy. Saddam was contained and of no threat to anyone. The Iraqi people had pretty well learned how to survive under Saddam. They voted to elect him and they kept their mouths shut and went about their daily lives. Any support that Saddam gave to terrorism was pale in comparison to the support that Saudi Arabia did and still does give to terrorism. Given that Congress made the stupid decision to authorize Bush to go to war without properly challenging the basis for that war and given that Bush made the morally repugnant decision to go to war. Rummy should have listened to Shinshecki rather than Wolfowitz in determining the necessary force level. But Rummy had his own agenda of demonstrating that a war could be successfully won with air power and minimal forces. So he chose to use the advice of someone with no military experience rather than someone with experience and pushed Shinsheki out the door. There should have been sufficient troops to prevent any insurgency from taking place to begin with. They should not have allowed widespread looting of anything and everything other than the oil ministry. They shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi Army into an army of enemployed. Pulling them back together after they had disbanded them doesn't fix the problem that they created by disbanding them. It wasn't the most brilliant move to serve up the first returning Iraqi troops with pork dinners. With widespread unemployment throughout Iraq, they shouldn't be bringing in foreign workers to take the jobs that are available. Rummy, Tenet and Rice should have been booted out the door rather than rewarded. Iraq as a single country is artificial. It's been artificial since the British set it up that way. The Kurds had independence and they're not giving it up. They're in the process of "re-patriating" lands in Northern Iraq from the Arabs...their own little form of gerrymandering. The only reason to keep Iraq as a single country is to appease Turkey, which doesn't have a lot to do with the Iraqis. The best thing that could have happened was if the Constitution failed to pass and opened up an opportunity to divide Iraq into the three countries that it should have been to begin with. World wide terrorism is far larger today than it was before the Iraq war and Iraq is used as an effective recruiting tool for that terrorism. Zarqawi's network now spans some 40 countries and grown to a size equal to that of AQ. Leaders in those organizations are bit players and easily replaceable. As a fairly fluid organization they can adapt and quickly reform into new cells, learning from the mistakes of their predecessors. The recruitment abilities of Islamic terrorism are far more effective than the recruitment abilities of the US and Britain. Rummy just said he has no idea whether we're winning the war on terrorism. A political faux pas. An Iraqi "votes" based on what the cleric tells him to vote. A lot of people running around with purple fingers is not a democracy. The Iraqis spend their days [and nights] wondering if they'll be killed by insurgents, foregin fighters, Iraqi police, Iraqi military or US forces. Bush has one plan and only one plan. Stay the course. And you have the miniscule perspective of should we have gotten rid of Saddam, yes or no. jttmab