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: Bilow who wrote (193428)	7/27/2006 10:51:44 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I voted for Bush twice, his dad twice more, and will vote Republican in the next election. Yipes, that is quite a string of votes for incompetence!

To: Bilow who wrote (193428)	7/27/2006 2:03:01 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Bilow, re: "I voted for Bush twice, his dad twice more, and will vote Republican in the next election." WHY??? You don't know who will be running as a Republican or Democrat. You don't know what their policies will be. You don't know what issues will be the most critical and what approaches will be effective in two years and yet you state, without qualification, that you will vote Republican in the next election. That's only a little more silly than your posture in the last election. You remember, the one where you thought the Bush policy in Iraq was absurd and counter productive but that Bush would see the light and pull back, or be forced to pull back, from the brink of his costly and foolish efforts in Iraq. And, of course, you voted for him then. Extreme loyalty to a sports team is cute. Loyalty to a friend or family member is understandable and even admirable, within limits. But devoted, set in stone, doglike loyalty to a political party is a mark of poor thinking or personality defects, especially during a time when we're involved in a wasteful, costly and undoable war of choice. And, by the way, your rationale for why Bush 1 refused to take out Saddam is based on what? The quotes I've read from the book indicate that Bush 1 and his primary advisors understood the powderkeg of sectarian violence, radical Islamic movements and tribal conflicts that Saddam tried to keep a lid on and that they didn't want any part of blowing that dam and then trying to stop the water from flowing through the breach. It appears that in your attempt to try to put some kind of rational face on the motives and strategies of an irrational administration you, once again, fall back on fantasy. Do you recall how you insisted that Bush wouldn't invade Iraq because to do so was insane? Do you recall how you insisted that Bush would pull back and pull out some time after the 2004 election because to refuse to do so would be such a poor choice? I do. For you, when is enough, enough? Ed

To: Bilow who wrote (193428)	7/27/2006 2:26:15 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is what Bush 41 said: fas.org "I don't believe in mission creep," he continued. "Had we gone into Baghdad -- we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours -- and then what? "Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho?" he asked. "We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power -- America in an Arab land -- with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous." --------------- If Dubya had actually gone to war, he might have emerged as a decent sort of man. You can't teach some people anything. I think the one thing Dubya may regret is that he didn't declare martial law in the US right after 911 and kept it on forever. I think most of the opposition to the US was that it was a unilateral action based on a pack of lies for oil profits. Makes sense. Actually Dems are the: save the unions, save Medicare/Medicaid, save SS, increase minimum wage into a working wage, provide help for the working class party. Republicans are the: steal for the top 1/10th of 1% by appealing to the stupid side of the working class - gods/guns/gays. To say that you're for the working class and vote Republican is to be hypocritical beyond belief. The Bush you voted for admitted, on videotape, that his BASE is the 'haves and have mores.' Where do you think that 'mores' comes from? It comes from the hide of the outsourced, financially strapped, despised, spit upon, overworked, abused and shrinking middle class. Republicans: increased national debt by 45% in just 6 years Republicans: fought tooth and nail for estate tax bill that affected .27 of 1% of estates Republicans: fought tooth and nail for BigPharma to prevent government price negotiations resulting in the BIG DOUGHNUT for seniors which will, amazingly, come to roost around November. Most people believe in a fair fight based on real policy differences. Republicans believe in theft of votes, of money, of the country. Bush has a 31% approval rating. There are lots of working class people who hate Republicans and will for the rest of their lives.