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 (173850)	11/1/2005 3:16:08 PM
From: el_gaviero	Respond to of 281500

Great post (eom)

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/1/2005 3:36:04 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Great post- completely wasted on the person you posted it to, but a great effort at communication nevertheless. People who have to demonize the "other side" of a political debate, have already lost the debate- since they are incapable of understanding the real issues involved, and will appeal only to zealots like themselves. Unfortunately we see a lot of demonizing of both left and right- and what really matters (imo) is being able to see both sides of the coin, and know the sides for what they are- well intentioned political opinions for getting America to a more positive position in the world. Unfortunately people who want to call their opponents traitors or enemy sympathizers have a long and ugly history of treating their political opponents rather badly if they get the chance.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/1/2005 4:29:29 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

Excellent post! I'll vote for whoever's for shaking off the Iraq tar baby, be it Democrat, Republican or someone else. The only thing I'm sure of is that Bush won't do it. This war is entirely his, and he knows it. He's left with a tiny window of time, just a few months now, before the '06 elections. He can't afford to lose a House of Congress, or he'll face some REAL investigations - what WILL he do? It's a dangerous time for America.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/2/2005 1:43:05 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

Ed, first off, no one is "spinning Vietnam". In Iraq the same political and nationalistic forces that made "victory" impossible in Vietnam are growing stronger with every Iraqi we kill. And the stronger those forces are, the more fearful and violent our soldiers will become. And the stronger those forces grow, the more violent our soldiers will become. It's a vicious cycle and once it reaches critical mass the only choices are to get out of the way and let the locals find their own path or make war on the entire population as we did in parts of Vietnam, only finish the job by killing them wholesale. Is that the kind of "help" you'd like to give them? The only problem with this analysis is it wasn't supported by the American people during the last election. But more importantly it's simply wrong Ed. The terrorists are not growing more powerful, the terrorists are steadily having their legs taken out from under them while we continue to build up the Iraqi forces. This is not the Vietnam military. We will defeat the forces aligned with fascist Islam. The steps we've been able to achieve in under 4 years have been nothing more than miraculous. The Iraqi people have voted twice, first to form a coalition government, and recently to ratify the framework of a constitution. Contrasting the progress we've made in Iraq, vs the progress we failed to make in Vietnam shows no comparision at all. It seems to me there is a group of people who see "Vietnam scenarios" behind any engagement. The world is different now, and our armed services are a heck of a lot better prepared and trained then they were 40 years ago. And the question of continuing a war has NOTHING to do with honoring dead soldiers. It has everything to do with honoring the lives of those who'll become dead soldiers if we continue. Of course it does. Not completing the mission and allowing terrorists to control Iraq would be a terrible insult to the families and service members who sacrificed their life toward our mission. Especially, when the goals are so close to becoming reality. How would you feel if you'd lost two of your four kids in Iraq? Would you feel that you needed to see your other two kids dead in order to "honor" the deaths of your first two? Or would you want to re-evaluate the doability of the mission and make a cost benefit analysis to determine whether it was worth the lives of your last two children? It's when it's other people's kids at risk that the "honor the dead" thing seems compelling. Since we have an all volunteer force, given this scenario, I could only assume they believed in the cause and were willing to risk their life for what they believed in. Of course I would be terribly sad, just like any parent would, but it's their life to lead, not mine. And I would honor the decisions they made. I would not do a Shehan and dishonor my son in order to gain political publicity, that's truly dispicable. Ed, you can deny the political views all you want, and no doubt you could find exceptions to every rule, however, the partisan political posturing at the expense of our military goals has been as clear as the nose on my face. Unfortunately, I gotta run....

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/4/2005 7:18:37 PM
From: Wowzer	Respond to of 281500

Great post!

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/4/2005 7:27:31 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 281500

You're a star. Knocked me out. Sioux

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/4/2005 9:46:57 PM
From: altair19	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

cnyndwllr, <Vietnam's been a frigging nightmare for those who served in combat and for those who've mourned American soldier's deaths for decades> Your note was passed to me by StockmanScott. I admire and respect what you said. Altair19 MACV 67-69

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/5/2005 3:32:27 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 281500

Wow. You really nailed it. Rat

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/5/2005 6:52:28 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

*THIS WAS WRITTEN BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM TEXAS* house.gov HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 2, 2005 Big Lies and Little Lies Scooter Libby has been indicted for lying. Many suspect Libby, and perhaps others, deliberately outed Joe Wilson’s wife as a covert CIA agent. This was done to punish and discredit Wilson for bringing attention to the false information regarding Iraq’s supposed efforts to build a nuclear weapon-- information made public in President Bush’s State of the Union message in January 2003. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen to determine if this revelation regarding Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, violated the Intelligence Identification Protection Act. The actual indictment of Libby did not claim such a violation occurred. Instead, he has been charged with lying and participating in a cover-up during the two-year investigation. I believe this is a serious matter that should not be ignored, but it is not an earth-shattering event. This case, like almost everything in Washington, has been driven by politics-- not truth, justice, or the Constitution. It’s about seeking political power, pure and simple, not unlike the impeachment process during the last administration. There are much more serious charges of lying and cover-ups that deserve congressional attention. The country now knows the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on information that was not factual. Congress and the people of this country were misled. Because of this, more than 2,000 U. S. troops and many innocent people have died. Tens of thousands have been severely wounded, their lives forever changed if not totally ruined. The lies Scooter Libby may or may not have told deserve a thorough investigation. But in the scheme of things, the indictment about questions regarding the release of Valerie Plame’s name, a political dirty trick, is minor compared to the disinformation about weapons of mass destruction and other events that propelled us into an unnecessary war. Its costs-- in life, suffering, and money-- have proven to be prohibitive. The Libby indictment, unless it opens the door to more profound questions concerning why we went to war, may serve only as a distraction from much more serious events and lies. The decision to go to war is profound. It behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the President, Congress, and the people were misled into believing that invading Iraq was necessary for our national security. Why do we still not know who forged the documents claiming Saddam Hussein was about to buy uranium from Niger? Was this information concocted by those who were overly eager to go to war? Why was CIA reluctance regarding this assessment ignored, allowing it to be presented by the President as a clincher for our need to go to war? Other reasons used to justify the war deserve equal attention, since the results have been so painful for our country. If lies were told to justify the invasion of Iraq, the American people deserve to know the truth. Congress has a responsibility to seek this truth and change our policies accordingly. The sooner this is done the better.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/5/2005 11:43:37 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 281500

So, my question to you and the ones who support your point of view is, who's team are you Ed? Me? I'm on the smart team with real values. The one that thinks of 2,000 dead soldiers and doesn't see a number but instead sees one man with a family, dreams, courage and a future dead, and sees that 2,000 times over. The one that sees the war in Iraq as fueling the hatreds and passions of Muslims around the world, and justifiably so. And sees it getting worse if we don't get out. The one that understands that all of our vast economic and military power is incapable of remaking the middle east in our image. The one that understands that the faction we're backing in Iraq is using us and will likely be our enemy in the future while the faction we're fighting for them might have made a better ally. The one that understands the clear lessons of recent history and is appalled at the arrogance, ideological blindness and outright dim thinking of our current leadership. That's my team and it sure as hell isn't the Bush/Cheney team. Whose team are you on-the promote Al Queda team? Ed Hear! Hear! Well said!

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/16/2005 12:37:39 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Cnyndwllr- Totally blogworthy: jasonbrzoska.com Hope you don't mind the quote. -Z

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (173850)	11/18/2005 12:35:27 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

When you have a war to remove a brutal dictator who is an enemy of the international community and when the war is won easily, one can be fooled into thinking that the baathist and terrorist enemy wont find much support and that iraqis would rise up to support us. But they didnt and we cant control the violence any longer. Today is another perfect example of that. So as in Vietnam we get the stay the coursers but there is no course or no good course. Then we get folks who want to throw good money after bad and increase the effort. And then there are the folks like me who called for stated exit dates to both give us an exit strategy and give the good iraqis reaon to fight against the bad terrorists and baathists. But this admin said stay the course. Now with the last iraqi election one month away it all comes down to how they vote and what they will do to defend themselves. I will give them 6 months and then we should withdraw our troops from iraq and to safe locations within the country for the short term. I figure that at a loss of 100 americans per month i am willing to take another 600 caaualties to preserve honor/whatever that means at this point. But no more after 6/30/06. Give the good iraqis some air support, OK but no more US troops in combat. Let them fight each other and if the iraqi taliban is victorious in the sunni areas, so be it. We can then surround and contain them and bomb them to hell if they mess with terror and wmds. At the same time we can support separate shiaa and kurd states. mike