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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (714425)	11/21/2005 3:50:12 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

"I'm not antiwar, I'm anti-failure!" Here is what you posted to lead me to call you a defeatest. "The longer we stay, the more we lose." Now since we will be staying for the foreseeable future, we will see if you are right. It should be getting worse every day from your position. So we'll check back in the future. OK with you? "Standing in the middle of an Islamic civil war is not 'smart'." Maybe not. Helping the good guys (the ones for freedom, democracy, rule of law, etc.) is good. We have done it a number of times with a few spectacular results (see ww1 and ww2). That you charactarize us as a bunch of dumb asses (who else stands in the middle of a fight with no purpose) is not somthing I agree with. There are (whether you believe it or not) some people fighting pretty hard to make sure we fail (they are called terrorists). To give them the "W" so to speak is beyond foolish. Your charactarization gives the impression that you believe the sides fighting us are equal to those fighting with us. I couldn't disagree with that more. "All we can do is bleed and be shot at by both sides ---" There it is again. DEFEATEST. Why do you have such low regard for our forces and capabilities? An absurd assumption, but one that allows me to see why you think we can't win. "First you call me a defeatist peacenik... THEN you accuse me of being a blood-thirsty war monger!" I respond to what you post (that's why it is in hilights above). I also like to show contradictions in unsupportable positions. I never said you were not an hypocrite. "It's just that you can't go in to a civil war ---" We didn't. We went into an Iraq lead by the dictator Saddam Hussein. You knew that, right? You are actually advocating (strongly) that we leave so there can be a civil war. Surely you can see the difference in those two positions. And more defeatism in the statement too, imo. "The only way the situation will be able to resolve itself is after we exit" Our plan is to exit asap. But we cannot do it before the good guys (the new gov', in case you are unsure) can handle itself. You say let them slug it out, and don't seem to care who wins. Our Generals on the field says it would be a mistake. Fortunatly Bush is going with their assesment instead of yours. My comment on you not caring how many die come from this "argument" of yours. Pull out and let them "go at it" equals more deaths (particularly to innocents) than if we continue to help the GOOD GUYS. Get it? Overall it seems to me that you think democracy cannot take hold in the m.e. I think it can, and would be good if it did. To pull out and let them slug it out would hand Iraq to bad people. And that is a bad situation that will result in more deaths worldwide. And if you are correct that Arabs cannot handle democracy we can say we gave it our all instead of the Buddy answer, which is: Get out, because we came into the middle of a civil war and are targets for both sides, and whatever side wins once we are out is fine with Buddy, because that is the best the middle east and Arab people can expect. Ever. Nice.