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 : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (22918)	9/13/2006 7:23:37 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

I call for Saddam to be put back in power. Do you think Bush will read my post and do it?... No, thank God. But unlike most of those who agree with you, you at least have the courage to admit you're pro-Saddam. If we hadn't gone into Iraq we could have secured Afghanistan completely (not just Kabul) and created a truly secure, economically viable democracy that could have given us EXTREME leverage in the entire region. I don't think Afghanistan would be any different if we hadn't gone into Iran. Why should it? Many of the islamist fighters who have streamed into Iraq to fight us there, would have streamed into Afghanistan instead. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and every other country in the region would have been impressed and TERRIFIED at how easily we routed the Taliban and turned Afghanistan into a "thriving" democracy. We did rout the Taliban easily and the region was impressed. As for turning it into a "thriving" democracy, what is the difference between a "thriving" democracy and what is there now? And why would it be any different absent an Iraq war? After we quickly routed the Taliban the Iranians were "asking" us to talk to them and the Pakistanis were quick to support us on our "war on terror". I think Iran is still asking us to talk to them - separately and instead of them meeting the UNSC's demands. WE were in the drivers seat then and our military efficiency was THE SHOCK and AWE that could have turned the whole region. THEN we stumbled into Iraq and our impotence and incompetence there has made us look more like the Soviets in Afghanistan than the invulnerable Super Power. One thing you're not mentioning is that prior to Iraq, the US was largely united. Now the opposition party and the MSM media is more hostile to the administration than our enemies.

To: RMF who wrote (22918)	9/13/2006 9:46:40 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

...I call for Saddam to be put back in power. SO...you just keep proving that you are a moron. what else is new. MAybe you can tell these folks that you want Saddam back:

To: RMF who wrote (22918)	9/14/2006 11:55:43 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I see you couldn't make your point without taking a couple of swipes at President Bush. I won't warn you again that baseless personal attacks are not tolerated on this thread. You can disagree with Bush's policies without resorting to baseless, unsubstantiated personal attacks. If you can't, do not post here anymore. As for your what if exercise, 'we should have left Saddam in power'; the main problem with it is that it's performed in a vacuum with you deciding the outcome. In fact you control everything as if you were an all powerful god imposing your will, moving earth & sky with a flick of your wrist. This is no different than a personal fantasy - they NEVER reflect the choices & outcomes from your real life. They always involve things you'd love to happen but have no bearing on your actual life here in the real world. And in those fantasies you get the hot babe, win the lottery, get the promotion to CEO, have great looks & matching physique - whatever your heart desires. Nothing ever goes wrong & that's just the point. With your visualization, 'we should have left Saddam in power'; you were free to ignore every obstacle that might result in an unfavorable outcome. Even if you considered any obstacles, you simply wave your hand & concoct a scenario that resolves it in your favor. Voilà! A perfect outcome every time! Then you compare this daydream of your making against the real world results from the policies of the Bush Admin. Guess what? Bush's real world decision making doesn't stand a chance against someone's fantasy. He's going to lose every single time. For someone who thinks their foreign policy fantasies are superior to that "impotent", "incompetent" "moron" in the White House; you'd think that something as obvious the above would have been painfully obvious to someone with your superior intellect. Or maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't get it.

To: RMF who wrote (22918)	9/14/2006 12:13:22 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Here is one scenario your 'we should have left Saddam in power' fantasy didn't begin to address. Message 22806657 And believe me, it's going to take a lot more than waving your hand & pretending to make it all go away. Everything covered in that post had to be considered seriously by the Bush Admin (and there's plenty more - I just rattled off that list off the top of my head). The status quo was NOT an option. That is an objective fact that can't be willed away in a fantasy. And before you dismiss it, please consider; - the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, - the Butler Report, - UN Inspections from 1991 through 2003, - the multiple sources documenting the Oil-for-Food fraud, - the multiple sources translating Iraqi documents & other media captured after Saddam's removal, ET AL. The evidence from the above sources overwhelmingly supports everything I said in that post.

To: RMF who wrote (22918)	9/14/2006 4:02:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Two alternative futures By Paul Greenberg Townhall.com Columnist Thursday, September 14, 2006 I knew that Jay Rockefeller was a U.S. senator from West Virginia, but before now I had no idea what a seer the man is. Not only can Rockefeller peer into the future and confidently tell us how it turns out, but he can turn the clock back to the past, specifically March of 2003, and, like a projectionist putting on an alternate reel, show us the better future that might have been. If only the United States and its allies had not invaded Iraq, Swami Rockefeller explains, the world would be a better place today - even if Saddam Hussein were still in power. How's he figure that? Well, Saddam "wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there. He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources. ..." It's all right there, in the senator's crystal ball. But two can play at this purely speculative game. Let's turn the clock back to 1936 and ask what would have happened if the West, instead of appeasing Hitler when he started his campaign of aggression by seizing the Rhineland, had stood up to him. Suppose an Allied expeditionary force had crossed the Rhine early on and deposed Der Feuhrer in a blitzkrieg of its own ... but then found itself bogged down in a guerrilla war, having to fend off suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, and attacks on the freely elected government that had replaced the brownshirts. Who knows what would have happened? But surely this much is certain: Some isolationist senator with Rockefeller's gift for second-guessing would have risen to explain how much safer the world would have been if only we had let Hitler stay in power, obnoxious little irritant that he might be. After all, "he wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there. He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources. ..." But as it happens, the free world did appease Herr Hitler. Again and again, until it was almost too late. And we all know the result: the most disastrous war in the history of the world. Back in the present, the president of the United States continues to speak out for his strategy in this war on terror, or whatever History in its wisdom/hindsight, will call it. Was the president's address from the Oval Office this week political? He was accorded the airtime on the major networks because it wasn't supposed to be political-and in the narrow, partisan sense, it may not have been. PB But it was certainly a political speech in the broader sense, laying out the president's grand strategy in this contentious conflict. In particular, his address to the nation emphasized his faith in freedom as the best defense against a fanatical enemy, one as devoted to violence and tyranny over others as the fascist movements of the last century. Reasonable men may agree or disagree with the president's policy, but fair-minded Americans will recognize his sincerity. For there is no reason other than honest belief for this president to pursue a course that has imperiled his popularity and divided the country. George W. Bush could have laid back, temporized just as his immediate predecessors did, and allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He could have treated terrorism, even on a 9/11 scale, as a matter of law enforcement rather than war. Instead, he has moved boldly against a great and growing threat. The presidency of George W. Bush could turn out as tragically as Lyndon Johnson's or Woodrow Wilson's, other presidential idealists. Much depends on the patience and perseverance of the American people. Or he may yet prove as far-sighted as Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan in understanding the threat to the free world in their time. But this president's continuing to plead his case, and his refusal to swerve from its basic justification, even in difficult times and as the leader of an increasingly divided nation, testifies to his honest convictions. One need not share those convictions to recognize that the man has some. And will fight for them. townhall.com