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: Geoff Altman who wrote (205564)	10/11/2006 2:35:27 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

I'm getting really tired of debating whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That's because your side has lost this argument. It is very tiring to hear Republicans try and shove their lies under the carpet because they have LOST. It is NEVER a moot point to discuss official lies especially when 2700 Americans and 30,000-120,000 Iraqis ARE DEAD BECAUSE OF THOSE LIES. When you pooh-pooh discussion of why we went into Iraq, you are dismissing that loss of life. That would make you Maurice. Don't be Maurice. Try and have some semblance of respect for those who should be alive and well but who are now dead.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (205564)	10/11/2006 2:47:17 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

>> I'm getting really tired of debating whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. Well, since you said you were not around here a few years ago and could not say whose predictions had been more accurate, I was simply pointing out a sample of those predictions by the so called "right" (e.g. Lindy Bill) and the "left". It was never my intention to debate invasion of Iraq itself...let's stay focused on the topic. As a side note, it has been my observation that it is usually the weaker party to who is willing to let the bygones be bygones and calls for "cooperation" and "what to do now". During the administrations high and mighty days the neocons and pro-war camp here were treating all disagreements as idiotic at best and as intentional treason at worst. The "liberals" were on the defensive and would make calls to unity. Now it seems to be the other way around. >> IMO, the present terrorist situation would have happened regardless of our invading Iraq. You are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to debate it, you should bring in a well articulated argument based on facts. As it stands your position seems like poor attempt to exonerate the Bush administration from their responsibility. Incidentally, many on the pro-war camp seem not to understand that their own hostile attitudes and even anticipation of their actions tends to bring about the conclusions they claim they are guarding against. The world works in very dynamic ways. Just because something happened after your actions, it does not mean it would also have happened if you had taken alternative actions...an example is to claim "the present terrorist situation would have happened regardless of our invading Iraq". ST >> In a nutshell (cause I've got to work<g>)... If you do decide to pick up the debate, take your time to articulate your position and back it up with facts...you have a lot of time since I too have to work and am unlikely to get back to you for a while.