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: one_less who wrote (223916)	3/13/2007 10:51:48 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Rough Cut, re: Laz produced a powerful argument deserving of thoughtful consideration. Well, maybe you can tell us all what that "powerful argument deserving of thoughtful consideration" was? What exactly is it about the simplistic and totally erroneous statement that; "An American military unit larger than a platoon was never defeated by the NVA or Viet Cong in Vietnam. So where do you think the war was lost? How about the streets of Berzerkeley?" that you find so "powerful" and deserving of "thoughtful consideration?" Is that something you'd accepted? Are you one of the cheerleading war hawks who refuses to learn anything from the deaths of 50,000 + soldiers in Vietnam? It also seemed to overlook the substance of Laz's linked articles. Why argue the same thing over and over again. Those articles are years old. They were planted by the Judy Miller/Chalabi types, they've long been discredited and you've lost that debate. It's been debunked. The old BBC articles and other dealing with Saddam Hussein's financing of those who attack Israel are more accurate. NO ONE ever disputed that and you'll have probably noted that a huge amount of similar money was coming from our "allied" nations in the region. We never went to war based on stopping that kind of support for attacks on Israel. In fact, if you'll recall one of the Bush platforms when he ran in 2000 was that the Arab/Israeli conflict wasn't any of our concern. HE let the Israelis spiral out of control. HE gave up our role as a semi-even handed referee in that conflict. It wasn't until reality bitch slapped him in the face and he realized that financing and supplying arms to a punitive Israeli right wing government was getting the Saudis so enraged that they were going to boot us out of Saudi Arabia and was fueling Arab rage against the U.S. that he finally intervened. And then, of course, he fumbled around ineffectually with his cowboy "for em or agin em," simplistic mind. but all the derogatory put downs at the start of his response made cnyn's presentation harder to consider on its own merit. I never knew you were so sensitive. If I'd have realized that the word "ass" might throw you into such a tissy fit that you'd had a hard time "considering" my post on its own merit, I'd have chosen to use a word like "fool," or a phrase like "self confirmed, many times over, proven fool." Now, feel better. Ed