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: Hawkmoon who wrote (197053)	8/13/2006 6:53:24 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Seemed pretty unstable to me when Saddam invaded Kuwait and then starting flinging SCUDS against Israel back in 1991. So unstable, that the US had to deploy some 500,000 troops to region to restore that "stablity" you claim so pervaded the region. And he had a real coalition in 1991. He really did have a "Mission Accomplished." Not some photo op on an aircraft carrier. No.. the terrorism was ALREADY persistent in the Middle East. But because we were turning a "blind eye" to the states perpetrated it, most of it was directed against Israel and other Arab states. I see you still can't remember what you said in a previous post...."And where were the majority of these attacks? They certainly were NOT in the United States, or even Europe." In the respect, the only differnce now is that acts of terrorism have gone over 10,000 per year. [And they're undercounted by the Administration's own admission.] Have you forgotten that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and that the Saudis teach there little ones to destroy the infidels? And still do. All we did was make them have to focus upon defending their own "turf" and essentially expose the reality that are just as willing to kill muslims as they are westerners in order fulfill their goals of restoring the Caliphate. Let's take 9/11 as a point in history and talk about how many westerners were killed by terrorism in the 5 years before 9/11 and how many westerners have been killed in the 5 years after 9/11. Which 5 years has the larger number of westerners killed? Before they were like passengers on a hi-jacked aircraft who felt they could just keep their mouths shut and not confront the militant forces in their midst, so long as they weren't on the "target list" of the hijackers. That was FAA policy. They didn't buy into the threat that hijackers could use airplanes as weapons. You think we learned from that? The threat that terrorists could combine parts of a bomb in flight was already a recognized threat, except for TSA. They treated it as "theoretical". In other words, ~"We'll wait until it happens." What were the passengers going to do, confront other passengers with bottles of Gatorade and toothpaste? As for "spin", the biggest LIE folks such as yourself are trying to purvey is that you have a better solution. The truth is that conservatives are happy with what Bush is doing and don't want to change. The ONLY reason conservatives want to "hear" about other ideas is so we stop talking about what an ABYSMAL FAILURE BUSH IS. Oh.. all well and good, until O'Reilly mentioned that such a strategy, if pursued, would mean that we'd have to invade Pakistan and other countries, thus widening the war. No it doesn't O'Reilly does what all conservatives do, they distort what someone says and creates false choices. It's the same thing conservatives did with Israel/Lebanon. There were only two choices for Israel, level southern Lebanon or do nothing [a false choice.] But your strategy is still vacuous. You have no strategy other than rhetorically bashing this administration, as if that's going to accomplish anything. Whether my strategy is vacuous or not is immaterial. The only strategy that is material is the strategy that is beign executed. Every other strategy is just theory. And theoretical strategies never accomplish anything. They're just a bunch of letters on a piece of paper [or screen]. They might as well be random for all they're worth. One only has to see your reaction to Israel's defending itself and seeking to destroy/disarm Hizbullah Do you realize who created Hezbollah? It was Israel. An unintended consequence of the occupation of Lebanon. As for "trying something else", that's the nature of war BS. Let's take one example. De-Baathification and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. The "liberals" on the thread warned you "conservatives" what would happen if you did that. We told you that you would be creating an army of unemployed that would have nothing better to do than cause trouble. But all of you conservatives went right along with what the Administration. The "liberals" did have a better idea in that instance but you didn't care. You're not going to care now whether there is a better strategy, you just don't want to confront the ABYSMAL FAILURE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. How about not sending enough troops in to begin with? Rummy let the troops stand by while Baghdad was being looted of everything including the bathroom fixtures. Is that the nature of war? Major tactical errors. This cr@p of "no plan survives the first day" is BS whose purpose is to distract you from the incompetence. They might as well gotten Brownie off the hook by saying, "FEMA did have a plan, but no plan survives the first day." Rummy should be booted out for incompetence. But it wouldn't fix anything. BUSH IS STILL COMMITTED TO A FAILED POLICY AND HE'LL PICK ANOTHER SECDEF THAT IS JUST AS INCOMPETENT AS HE IS. With all due respect. jttmab