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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (103179)	7/16/2007 2:05:17 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

>>>"An occupier is a country that is ruling the occupied country. That isn't our role in Iraq. We are there to support the Nationally elected government until it is strong enough to manage its own security." >>>Nonsense. We invaded, deposed Saddam, ran a protectorate, and then staged elections. This government has no credibility. The USA recognizes the Government of Iraq as legitimate. " And won't until we leave and it continues to exist. " The push to abandon them at this juncture that you disingenuously pretend not to be supporting would guarantee their failure to continue. >>>"You claimed that our presence in an Arab country causes more harm that good for America. That's bigotry." "That's ridiculous on it's face." No its not. You based your position on how it would make people feel if Americans are on Arab soil. That's bigotry. You might want to rethink that part of your argument. I doubt you think of your self as a bigot but the idea that there is a them and us who can not find collaborative resolutions is bigotry. "They morphed into Al Qaeda and turn their sites on the U.S. in SA. Despite your protestations to the contrary, they will also find our occupation of Iraq inspiring. I have made no such protestation. I have in fact agreed that our presence in Iraq could be a source of recruitment for extremists. You are now lying about my position, is that necessary for you to save face? You started out by saying it was all about Vietnam. You dropped that but instead of starting a new topic you just slipped into it being about Americans on Arab soil. That didn't pan out either. You have not dealt at all with the items I presented but keep deviating into other areas. Your claim is that MORE HARM is done to America by our staying in Iraq. The harm that would be done by us abandoning Iraq was stated. I never claimed there are no negative side effects. There are. "This is in fact a negative to staying. Yeah. Terrorists wont like it ... duh "Surely you jest. I'm talking about a foreign military occupation and you respond with this? We welcome Russian immigrants and tourists to America. We would fight Russian troops invading America. Is that too fine a difference for you to appreciate? Maybe i'm just too much of a bigot not to see that they're the same thing. You seem to have missed the point or avoided it. Russians invading America would be to conquer America for something like the USSR right? America went to war with Saddam and now keeps forces in Iraq to support the new Iraqi government. You see the two as the same, right? If so you are wrong which is why the distinction is being made by me.