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: KLP who wrote (76140)	8/25/2006 7:54:01 PM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Dems don't want to lose in Iraq. Dems want GWB to pay for his screw-up! Trillion dollar down the drain and thousands of American soldiers dead and maimed. And goodwill loss was unmeasurable. Deal with it.

To: KLP who wrote (76140)	8/25/2006 8:55:42 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I'm not sure what you mean by "lose" in Iraq. Bush defines a win as a democratic Iraq able to defend itself without our help but what is a loss? Is anything less than Bush's definition a loss?

To: KLP who wrote (76140)	8/25/2006 9:47:21 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Rumsfield and Cheney should have been replaced two years ago for their lies, corruption and blunders in Iraq. But Bush didn't do it, of course. Instead he fired those who told the truth. Therefore, Bush is responsible. He must be held accountable. He is the most impeachable president we have ever seen. At least Nixon was competent and didn't outright steal elections. Someone like Wes Clark could whip Iraq into shape pretty quickly, but Bush won't give him a chance. Why not? Because Bush only hires yes-men?

To: KLP who wrote (76140)	8/26/2006 10:52:31 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 173976

We already won. Remember Mission Accomplished? But by staying and occupying a country that has a boiling civil war going on, we can only lose. If the lessons of Vietnam are going to be ignored, ie the Powell Doctrine, then you can't really do anything but lose in the long run. That's why we should have finished up our mission long ago. Like right after Saddam was taken out and it was assured that no WMD were there. Then we should have handed off to the Iraqi people. But what we are really doing there is establishing a foothold in the middle east. It's not about Saddam or WMD. It's about military occupation. The question has to be asked, Why are we occupying Iraq? What is the purpose of it? You must answer this question honestly.

To: KLP who wrote (76140)	8/26/2006 2:53:24 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Who's arguing later? I have been an opponent of this war from before it started. Using the Powell Doctrine, ie the lessons learned from Vietnam, it was clearly not a good idea to begin with. So you're asking me, that even though it's a bad idea to stick a burning ember into your eye, you don't want me saying take the burning ember out of your eye, because it makes you look stupid for putting a burning ember in your eye?