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 (743722)	6/26/2006 10:57:05 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Nope... that is my argument: incompetant strategy and execution, not cost-effective, success very much in doubt because of that" Does this mean the same thing as short sighted? Again, these seem like legitimate arguments. But the Bush plan is very far sighted imo. Because it incorporates "MANY fronts (economic development, justice, Democracy, etc., etc.)" as you state. "it makes it QUITE clear that military action alone CANNOT win in the long-run." Nobody has ever stated that military power alone was Bush's plan. Your statement makes sense, but since it is not the plan it just muddies up the argurment. Your argrument should be (since you are against the plan) that it is too hard to do and it is better to let them settle it out. ""terrorism" is a TACTIC (employed all through history in various conflicts), NOT a discrete enemy" You are correct that it is not a "discrete" enemy. But it is our enemy (terrorists), and that is why this is the hardest war we have confronted. There is an Islamic strain of this terrorism that is our main target. "if while you kill ONE insurgent, THREE more are recruited from the subject population, then you are LOSING... " You are short sighted here too. First, you are pulling numbers out of a hat. Second you are assuming that people cannot learn that you will die if you choose to kill others. And most people prefer to live. Particularly when the alternative is peace and democracy, not tyranny and oppression. This is where the good vs. evil comes in. Most want good, most don't want to kill others and most prefer life to death. Ther ARE some things working for us here. Not just an endless math equation that says 3 killers sprout up for every one killed. "No, not if we drain resources away from these vital national requirements, we aren't. At some point, the financial crunch becomes inescapable. Many would argue we are at that point now...." They are wrong, and we are no where near that point. A few more 9-11's would bring us there much more quickly. A nuke in the hands of these nuts would do it in a day. This war (on terrorism) must be fought. "Whatever happened to the old saying that there is always more then ONE Way to skin a cat?" Still alive and well. You just have not convinced me that Buddy McKee is smarter than our smartest folks. And nobody on the left (I realize you don't put yourself there) has convinced me that Bush is dumb. It's a brilliant plan that can work. Your argument states that his goals "(economic development, justice, Democracy, etc., etc.)" must be attained, but you think it too expensive and too difficult. I think they can do it. Again, it would be good if more of the world would join us. But our own politicians bolster the outside view that we are the problem. This is the biggest problem imo. America has plenty of money. But we are in danger of losing our determination. "And you are apparently saying that an INFINITE amount of money is justified" No, I am saying America is wealthy enough to take on the number one problem in the world. Wish more of our "allies" would help. "We survived the great COLD WAR, didn't we?" Yes. At huge cost, and with a state nation facing elimination if they tried to nuke us. This will cost a lot too (probably less than the cold war). And it is more important because if some nut like obl gets a nuke we can't take out a whole country as a deterent. We HAVE to eliminate the cancer. Please support Dr. Bush in his effort. "IMO, this particular pipsqueek threat is nothing compared to those...." It is more dangerous in many ways. This view of yours is what colors your entire argument. This is another of those areas that give me clarity in your position, and I think is a weak spot in your argument. A sneakier and more difficult to fight enemy with way more dangerous weapons just around the corner. "Braking our nation and economy over this bunch of riff-raff would be falling into bin Laden's trap" Now you are being silly. We are going after him big time now and our economy is smoking. He launched a couple of airplanes at us and in one day did massive damage to the economy. As this progresses it appears that you are more worried about our economy more than the terrorists. Calling them pipsqueeks and indicating they can't really hurt us totally ignores 9-11 and the progression of events that lead up to that. And that is why I think Bush is smarter than Buddy, and I am glad he is in charge.