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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (2261)	11/16/2005 4:09:59 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (712862) 11/13/2005 11:24:50 PM From: Peter Dierks Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 713563 You have posted a very interesting thesis. The points you glossed over include the fact that Iraq was hated in the region; he had a history of attacking neighbors. He had public record of murdering his own citizens for political purposes. He was actively exporting terrorism (unless some leftwingnut can explain what else you would call paying $50,000 each to the families of cowardly Palestinian homicide bombers). The fact that they had Saddam on WMD violations galore just made the liberation of Iraq that much easier. The coalition of the bribed and coerced tried hard to prevent the UN resolutions from being enforced, but ultimately failed because of the resolve of Cowboy President Bush. You are probably correct that President Bush decided that he could do more good towards reducing terrorism by removing a despot from power. A vibrant Democracy in the Middle East would draw people and financial resources from surrounding countries. If people in the Middle East could see what success from self sufficiency is like, they will want and demand freedom themselves. I read this week that many Methodist retired Bishops and a few active ones came out stating they wished that the activities in Saddam's rape rooms had never been interrupted. Was the message that rape, mutilation, and murder are Methodist values to be honored and upheld? If the Methodists who made this a point are offended at my post, they are no more offended than I am at their statements of support for Saddam. The fact is that more people would most likely be dead in Iraq if Saddam were still in power, it just would have been freedom loving people and those willing to fight tyranny rather than despots and supporters of tyranny.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (2261)	11/16/2005 10:47:15 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

"Let me start out by saying that America has never been the land of appeasement. This hasn't been a weakness of ours but a strength. The American people have never been into turning the other cheek when it comes to the deaths of our citizens at home or abroad. We respond in kind depending on the scale of the offense. If our citizens or interests are attacked, either at home or internationally, we respond in kind in order to protect both. IMO the American people wouldn't stand for anything less. So, with this in mind, America was looking for some type of recourse after 9/11. 9/11, being the most egregious attack on American soil since the War of 1812." Here is an interesting quote about FDR: "Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and reasonably well known.[1]" ihr.org And then we have the Dean Doctrine which restated succinctly is "President Bush Lied." One thing that has been true of America is that we are not easily riled. Public opinion is not an easy thing to shape; FDR took years to bend public opinion to support the cause of freedom. We hope that in the future people will be able to say that 9/11 was an anathema; it stood alone in history as a sudden and unprovoked attack. It also stands alone at this juncture in history along with Pearl Harbor as events that caused dramatic and sudden shifts in popular opinion. In the forties FDR waged an extended public relations campaign designed to move public opinion towards confrontation with the Axis powers. In the nineties Clinton waged a public relations campaign to cover up his willy and attack domestic political foes. Clinton chose to wage the war over his perversions rather than keeping public attention focused on the growing threat from muslim extremism. FDR kept public attention focused on the threat from Germany and her allies. We are at a point in history in which one party has image problems due to forty years of being anti defense and anti self protection. They have devised a plan to hurt their opposing political party by attacking the act of defending our way of life. There appear to be many parallels between the tactics being used for this and the tactics employed by Hillary to distract attention to her husband's dalliances. As the Wizard of Oz said to the pilgrims after Toto pulled away the curtain "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."