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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (757529)	1/18/2007 7:38:16 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Good to see that you read Mauldin and Stratfor! Here, Stratfor's George Friedman is basically agreeing with several things that I've long posted on this site: Iran was the greatest regional beneficiary (along with the Kurds) of the US action to over-throw their long-time bete noir, Saddam, and put their co-religionists, the down-trodden Shiites, in majority control of the country (and Iranians have been sitting back and grinning like Cheshire Cats every time since that we've attacked their Sunni opponents... doing 'their fighting for them'); and the partition of Iraq into smaller (but more representative) 'statelets', or largely self-governing federated regions --- perhaps Shia south, Kurdish & Turkomen north, and a 'last man to sit down loses' Sunni rump-region in the west and middle (perhaps to be absorbed into Jordan or Arabia), NEED NOT in any way be a bad thing for American long-term strategic interests. In fact, such a resolution holds many potential benefits for the US --- certainly many more then a continuation of anything like current brain-dead American policy... that is only strengthening Iran.

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (757529)	1/18/2007 7:51:06 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"Principal beneficiaries of the war are Iran and al Qaeda" says former director of N.S.A. Message 23198138 (Time to stand up and achieve AMERICAN strategic interests... and not benefit enemies' interests.)

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (757529)	1/19/2007 2:05:56 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ron Paul for President? Libertarian congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has created an exploratory committee to consider a run in 2008 for the U.S. presidency. -------------------------------------------------------- GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS by James W. Harris theadvocates.org -------------------------------------------------------- In 1988 Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for president and received more than 400,000 votes. This time he will run as a Republican. Kent Snyder, chairman of Paul's exploratory committee, told the press that if Paul runs, it will be a serious attempt to win the White House, not just to raise attention to issues. "There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog," Snyder said. "But there was also a time when Jimmy Carter was not well known at all, when Bill Clinton was not well known at all. "This is going to be a grassroots American campaign," Snyder said. "For us, it's either going to happen at the grassroots level or it's not." Paul has served nine terms in Congress. He has long been a hero to libertarians and other fans of limited government. And in recent years, as both liberal and conservative policies and politicians have failed, Paul's popularity has risen. Paul's appeal cuts across the political spectrum. Those on the left admire his ironclad commitment to civil liberties and his advocacy of a foreign policy of peaceful non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Free-market conservatives admire his fiscal conservativism. John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower taxes, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." Paul has emerged as one of the strongest critics of the Iraq war. He was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war. He has delivered blistering anti-war speeches on the floor of Congress. As the war has grown increasingly unpopular, Paul's principled stance has come to be appreciated and admired. As the popular liberal blog Wonkette puts it, in a post entitled "Save America! Ron Paul for President!": "Paul is a libertarian Republican who constantly enrages the GOP because he actually believes in a small federal government and sound fiscal policies. He's ... anti-drug laws, anti-police state, anti-Patriot Act and anti-anything that's not authorized by the Constitution." Paul has staked out bold, consistent libertarian positions. He has introduced legislation to abolish the federal income tax; is a staunch defender of gun rights; opposes the War on Drugs; is a champion of sound money; and in general has been a wonderfully consistent defender of the libertarian ideals of personal and economic liberty. Paul says that he votes only for measures specifically authorized by the Constitution. This means, of course, that he votes against almost all proposals for government spending, initiatives, or taxes, whether Republican or Democrat. That has earned the former obstetrician the nickname "Dr. No." A fairer nickname would be "Dr. Constitution" or "Dr. Liberty." Or perhaps even better, as his wife suggests, "Dr. Know." As a non-profit educational organization, the Advocates does not endorse candidates. However, Congressman Paul has long been a friend of the Advocates, and we in turn have long been great admirers of Congressman Paul. We can only welcome the wonderful educational effect of a presidential campaign by the man we have called many times "the greatest congressman since the days of the Founding Fathers." Sources: Washington Post: washingtonpost.com Wonkette: wonkette.com Associated Press: dfw.com Ron Paul exploratory committee: ronpaulexplore.com

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (757529)	1/19/2007 5:51:33 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

I am leaning more and more toward moving our troops to secure Iraq's borders and I mean AIR TIGHT and the Kurdish area (which is probably the calmest, most successful portion of Iraq, and then let the Iraqi's settle their mess themselves. As an American, frankly if the Iraqi's cant agree on a coalition type goverment with all parties represented I dont give a tinkers damn whether its SUNNI or SHIA or even KURD led, so long as it NOT influenced by Iran, Syria or any other enemy of the USA. If 160,000 AMERICAN troops are insufficient to TOTALLY SECURE Iraq's borders then I would suggest we HIRE AS MERCENARIES, Kurds (whose army is supposedly far better then anything the other Iraqis can muster) to join our ranks. jdn