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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (70377)	6/25/2006 9:54:15 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 173976

Do you think Casey knows where Okinawa is?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (70377)	6/25/2006 10:07:02 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (70377)	6/25/2006 11:26:37 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

June 26, 2006 Editorial Really Bad Ideas on Korea North Korea hasn't yet tested its new long-range missile, but some bizarre ideas have already started flying around Washington about the best way for America to respond — including a proposal by two Democratic defense experts to launch a pre-emptive American attack on the missile. While that isn't likely to inspire greater sobriety in Pyongyang, it has made the Bush administration's less strident preparations for a possible military response look statesmanlike by comparison. What would be better still would be for the White House to heed yesterday's call by senior Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for direct talks with North Korea on the issue. Pyongyang is unpredictable. It claims to have nuclear weapons already. And a successful long-range missile test would mark a significant step down a road that might eventually give it the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons as far as the United States. But the danger, for now at least, is scarcely imminent enough to justify a pre-emptive military response. An American overreaction would do more harm than good. There are many good reasons why North Korea should not test an intercontinental ballistic missile. But it has every legal right to do so. Washington, on the other hand, has no obvious legal right to blow up North Korea's missile on the launching pad. Doing so would forfeit the diplomatic high ground on an issue that in the end will have to be resolved by diplomatic means, and with active Chinese support. Washington needs to keep two fundamental goals in sight. The first, obviously, is to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs. The second is to make sure that neither Pyongyang's feints nor Washington's responses touch off a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia. For most of its tenure, the administration has refused to engage in serious nuclear diplomacy with North Korea. The exception came during a brief period last summer when American diplomats were actually allowed to engage in substantive talks, which led fairly quickly to a broad agreement in principle. Progress came to a sharp halt after Washington abruptly imposed unrelated banking sanctions and declared them nonnegotiable. North Korea then responded in a very North Korean way by walking away from the nuclear talks. This is all very symmetrical, except that time is clearly not on America's side. Now North Korea is renouncing its missile test moratorium, which it had agreed to in the hope of negotiations on that issue. This gathering crisis is dangerous enough on its own terms. But if mishandled by Washington, it could have potentially disastrous regional consequences, driving a further wedge between Japan and China.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (70377)	6/25/2006 11:38:13 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Casey's just a "cut 'n run" General!

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (70377)	6/26/2006 8:47:52 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Imagine if Iraqis Had Caused the Deaths of 570,000 Americans (3 comments ) READ MORE: Iraq, Hillary Clinton The LA Times ran a story this weekend that calculated the number of violent deaths in Iraq since the US invasion. The conservative estimate based on morgue counts was over 50,000 dead. This number did not include deaths in the Kurdish area, deaths anywhere outside of Baghdad in the first year after the invasion, any non-violent deaths related to the war and it significantly underestimated deaths in the Anbar province, which is the Sunni stronghold where a lot of the fighting has taken place. Still, the number is over 50,000 violent deaths. And, oh yeah, it doesn’t count the American dead, which is over 2,500. Or the American injured, which is over 18,000. Or the Iraqi injured, which is God knows how many. The LA Times pointed out that proportionally that would be the equivalent of 570,000 Americans killed in this country. In other words, since their population is much smaller, the 50,000 deaths in Iraq would have the same impact as 570,000 dead here. Now imagine if Iraq had invaded the United States and caused 570,000 Americans to die, either through their actions, the insurgency that rose up to fight the Iraqi occupation or through foreign terrorists that poured in over our border to fight the Iraqis but killed so many more Americans. Now, how do you think we would feel about those occupiers? Do you think after 570,000 dead Americans, we would accept the Iraqi line about how they wanted to help us by instituting regime change in our country and convert us to their form of government? Do you think perhaps we would have fought back? I’m not going to even get into the American natural resources they would have given to Iraqi companies, the billions of dollars of our government money they would have lost, their gross mismanagement of the country and the ensuing chaos, churches blown up in every city, race wars they wound up triggering here, etc., etc. Do you think we would have fought back? Somehow this is not supposed to be a kosher question. I can’t quite understand why. I am not supposed to disturb your pleasant morning in paradise with the idea of the rage we would have if a foreign power occupied us and caused 570,000 Americans to die here. So go on about your pleasant lives and pretend we didn’t do that to all those people. How long can we stomach this? How many more Iraqis have to die before we think we did some think morally reprehensible? And then I think of politicians like Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Hillary Clinton who still defend this war and refuse to call it a mistake. It makes me sick. The Young Turks

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (70377)	6/26/2006 10:52:11 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

It seems everyone does agree on one thing: Troop reduction should not be a political decision, it should be based on advisement of top brass military commanders. No 'side' of politics is against troop reduction in Iraq. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, "It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration," Levin said It appears that Levin is contradicting himself. He is a major sponsor of a political resolution, while declaring that troop reductions should not be a political decision.